Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Ashfield, in the room of David Ian Marquand, Esquire (Manor of North-stead).—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Traffic Commissioners (Licensing System)

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received on the reform of the traffic commissioner licensing system.

Mr. Mates: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what further representations he has received about the reform of the traffic commissioner licensing system.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): In response to the consultation document on transport policy the county councils have asked for road service licensing to be transferred to them, the Association of District Councils and both sides of the bus industry have opposed such a transfer, and a handful of private individuals have supported each side.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, which seems to leave an indeterminate situation in terms of making the decision. Is he aware that commuters in Hove and Brighton find it unacceptable that their fares have increased by 130 per cent. in four years? When the traffic commissioners take account of the question whether a route is adequately served, as they are required

to do in determining whether to grant a road service licence, does he think it reasonable that they should also take account of the price charged for the service, and whether it includes a degree of cross-subsidisation by British Rail of one route by another?

Mr. Horam: There is certainly no cross-subsidisation in British Rail. That is evident if one looks at the allocation of costs within the system. The House has had a number of debates about commuters. The Government are very sympathetic to commuters who have been faced by very steep increases of over 100 per cent. in a period of two or three years. We are looking closely at this question in our review of transport policy.

Mr. Mates: Irrespective of who has responsibility for issuing these licences, will the Minister recognise that there is a growing feeling that some bus companies are more concerned with preserving monopoly routes than with providing services for the public? In the light of the situation in rural areas particularly, will he make it absolutely plain that the needs of the public must come first, even if this means stepping on the toes of some monopoly interests?

Mr. Horam: Of course the needs of the public come first, but the hon. Member must realise the real fragility of the situation in rural areas, where many services are running very close to what is economically possible. If we were to accept the letting in of competition in a totally free manner, we might do more harm than we intend.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister consider proposals that have been suggested for experiments with commuter coach services? Will the Government seek to promote a number of experiments with such services from towns around London? We should not turn our backs on any scheme that promises to cut the cost of travel for commuters who are most hard hit by fare rises over the past two years.

Mr. Horam: Experiments may be made on private initiative. I believe that one has been carried out by the Brighton Line Commuters Association, but this has not done so well because it takes much longer to get to London by bus


than it does by train. If the journey takes two hours, it is not really a viable proposition. However we are anxious to encourage experiments wherever we can.

Road Haulage

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for nationalisation of road haulage; and whether he will make a statement.

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for nationalisation of road haulage; and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) on 9th February.

Mr. King: Is not road haulage the only form of inland transport that requires no subsidy? Is it not time that the air of uncertainty was removed by the Government withdrawing their 1974 promise to nationalise the industry? The situation has been made even worse by the Chancellor's recent impositions, which make life harder still for the industry.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that there is any need to take a strenuous view of this. As far as I can judge, the road haulage industry is doing reasonably well, both the publicly owned and the privately owned sectors, and good luck to them.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that road haulage seems to be such a great success because of the hidden subvention of cash to heavy lorries, due to under-taxing? Is this not the essence of the problem and one of the realities that seem to make the railways run at a loss and the road haulage industry run at a profit?

Mr. Rodgers: I take my hon. Friend's point. He knows what the Chancellor did in the Budget to help remedy the question of costs, and the extent to which they are covered. However, although I should like to see more freight carried by the railways, we must recognise that we also want an efficient road haulage business. It has a job to do in the interests of the nation and in support of industrial strategy.

Mr. Moate: Surely the House is entitled to a much clearer statement of Government policy than that which the Secretary of State has just given us. May I remind the Secretary of State of his manifesto commitment to an extension of public ownership in road haulage? If that is still Government policy, what takeovers has he in mind? If it is not, is it not his duty, as a much proclaimed moderate, to remove this threat to the industry by formally abandoning that commitment?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's advice. He will also be aware of what the consultation document said about the Government's intentions. There has been no change. However, if the hon. Gentleman is looking for a further declaration of the position on transport policy, I hope that it will be with him by the end of May.

Motor Cycle Training

Mr. Arthur Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for encouraging the extension of voluntary schemes of motor cycle training.

Mr. Horam: The Royal Automobile Club and the Auto Cycle Union have a training scheme for motor cyclists which they operate in conjunction with local authorities at about 250 centres. The schools traffic education programme, which is sponsored by the motor cycle industry, has recently prepared plans for a national scheme. I welcome this initiative and am studying it urgently, together with other proposals to reduce casualties among motor cycle and moped riders.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for the tributes that he has paid to the voluntary side of training for motor cyclists. He will be aware, as many of us are aware, of the awful vulnerability of motor cyclists to accidents. Have the Government any proposals for further encouraging the voluntary training of motor cyclists?

Mr. Horam: As I said, we are looking at this matter as closely and as urgently as we can, with every intention of trying to be positive about the matter. The real problem is to catch people early. It is in the first weeks or months of a young person's possession of a moped


or a motor cycle that he is most vulnerable. That is the area on which we really want to home in.

Mr. Freud: Does the Under-Secretary realise the harm that he has done by announcing on a BBC television programme that mopeds are capable of excessive speeds, which they are not capable of achieving?

Mr. Horam: In fact, we introduced a regulation, which will come into force this summer, to reduce the design speed of mopeds to cope with this problem. Therefore, even if the problem exists—I gather that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it does—it will not exist in the future.

Mr. George Rodgers: Is there not perhaps insufficient financial incentive for young motor cyclists to have training and, ultimately, to take the test? Apparently it is almost as cheap to continue using a machine without having passed the test as it is having passed the test.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the salient points. People can go on with provisional licences year after year, and there is no real incentive to take the test. That is precisely the sort of point that we are looking at in the course of the comprehensive review that we are now undertaking.

Mr. Hannam: Now that it is the Government's policy to drive more people from motor cars to motor cycles, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of apathy among young people towards taking this kind of training? Therefore, will he make a special attempt to take into schools the teaching of the necessity to undergo training?

Mr. Horam: The new efforts of the people who run the schools traffic education programme are designed precisely to that end. They already have an expanding programme in schools. That is a sensible thing. However, we need to consider whether that is the right way to approach the matter in total. Other things are needed as well, but we are certainly pursuing that line.

Motor Cars (Insurance Write-Offs)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he

has come to in the light of his preliminary investigations into the problem of insurance write-off cars being put back on to the road without test.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has come to in the light of his preliminary investigations into the problem of insurance write-off cars being put back on to the road without test.

Mr. Horam: We have examined the details of badly damaged and repaired vehicles that been supplied to us, but these do not enable us to measure the size of the problem. We are therefore arranging to discuss with the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association a research project that it has proposed.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply will come as something of a disappointment, and shows a rather uncharacteristic unwillingness to deal very urgently with a problem that endangers a large number of lives?

Mr. Horam: On the contrary, we are looking at the matter as urgently as possible, but it takes a little time to undertake a proper sample survey, which we need, and to make up our minds on the basis of the results that are forthcoming. We must find out whether this is a serious matter or only a small one.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it not becoming increasingly clear that what is needed is a comprehensive vehicle testing system, as the only testing system that exists in this country at present is the MoT testing system? Has the hon. Gentleman given any consideration to building such a system upon the national network? Is he aware that if he were to do that he would find all the information that he needs forthcoming from the British insurance companies?

Mr. Horam: The British Insurance Association does not consider that the problems arising from written-off vehicles are serious, so there is some contradiction in what the hon. Gentleman said and the information that we have had from the BIA. At present, the BIA does not believe that this is a serious problem, so the hon. Gentleman should take that into account.

National Freight Corporation

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plan he has for reorganising the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for reorganising the National Freight Corporation; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. William Rodgers: The organisation of the National Freight Corporation is under consideration as part of the current review of transport policy.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Why has the right hon. Gentleman hitherto refused to publish the report by Cooper Brothers? Secondly, as the public have to pick up the bill for any losses that are made, will he assure the House that the future will be based solely on the commercial viability of the new organisation that is set up?

Mr. Rodgers: We have discussed the question of the Cooper Report on several occasions in the House. I have made it clear that I am very much in favour of the nationalised industries publishing as much information as possible for the convenience of the House, but commercial considerations must also be borne in mind. However, I believe that the NFC will in due course be able to make a substantial contribution to our industrial strategy, and I think that it ought to pay its way.

Mr. Arnold: If this is a nationalised corporation, what possible public interest can arise from keeping the report secret?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman expresses a somewhat naÏve view of the rôle of those publicly-owned industries that are in a highly competitive position. I was asked earlier this afternoon about the future public ownership of the road haulage industry. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to that Question, he would have found an adequate answer to that which he asked just now, about why a report should be kept confidential.

Mr. Viggers: Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Chairman of the

NFC, Sir Daniel Pettit, on his new additional appointment as a director of Lloyds Bank? Does this imply an increase in the activities of Sir Daniel Pettit, or dare we hope that it implies a decrease in the activities of the NFC?

Mr. Rodgers: Sir Dan is a man of many parts. I am sure that the confidence that the private sector shows in him is a measure of the success that he brings to the NFC.

Mr. Crouch: Is it the Secretary of State's intention to ask the House for extra finance to support the pension fund of the NFC, which is a burden at present? Is there any consideration of the need to find extra moneys?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall not be expressing a view on that matter today. It has been discussed in Committee. I know that it is of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Speed Limits

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will now make a statement on his proposals for speed limits.

Mr. William Rodgers: Yes, Sir. From the beginning of June the national speed limit on dual-carriageway roads will be restored to 70 m.p.h. On single-carriageway roads the limits will be raised from 50 to 60 m.p.h. Where, of course, safety considerations require it, lower limits will be indicated in the usual way.

Mr. Budgen: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be widespread public relief that he has at last taken notice of the views of the vast majority of road users? Will he tell the House whether it is the beginning of a review by the Government of all the Acts on the statute book, with a view to eliminating those Acts that are unnecessary, unenforceable and interfering?

Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks—though perhaps he put them in a way that I would not have chosen. These are serious and difficult matters. The whole House has discussed them many times. I think that the House appreciated the circumstances in which, in 1974, the lower speed limits were imposed. When I first became aware of them I thought that they were


right, but consultation has indicated, as the House has indicated, that it was time for a change. We have responded to that. I would draw no larger conclusion, as the hon. Gentleman has attempted to do.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the need to encourage local authorities, in conjunction with police authorities, to review local 30 m.p.h. speed restrictions? Some of these were introduced up to 40 years ago, when conditions in built-up areas were different. Does he realise that these limits are now often totally anomalous and that there is often great resistance to altering them—although there is a need for that to be done?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that limits must be looked at frequently to adapt to changing circumstances and to allow for public opinion—although that is often divided. If the hon. Member has a specific question, I shall be grateful if he will let me know about it.

Mr. Bagier: Is the Minister aware that in the past there have been no speed limit signs on single carriageways? Has my right hon. Friend any estimate of the cost of signposting such roads?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has misunderstood. The new speed limits of 60 and 70 m.p.h. will not be signposted, because they are upper speed limits. There will be signposting where there are downward variations for safety and other reasons. It would be expensive and time-consuming to signpost the upper limit.

Mr. Norman Fowler: This is a substantial victory for those who have pressed for change. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the major reasons why we have pressed for change during the last 12 months is the confusion that has been caused to motorists by having three speed limits at 50, 60 and 70 m.p.h.? Does he realise that although I welcome the reduction in speed limits, because that will give great help to motorists, I regret that the decision was not taken earlier? Will he emphasise to the public that the changes will not come into force immediately, but on 1st June?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member made an important point in his final remark. It should be noted that these limits will come into force on 1st June and not before

then, and that the present position will be maintained in the meantime. I hope that the changes will be welcomed. They should not be regarded as more than a victory for common sense in the light of the change in circumstances.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will encouragement be given to the police not to prosecute between now and 1st June, because there surely could not be any greater incentive?

Mr. Rodgers: It would be presumptuous of me to give such advice to the police. Where law exists, it is important that it should be enforced, but it is more important that it should be respected. I am sure that every hon. Member will endorse that view.

Mr. Marten: What is the possibility of an 80 m.p.h. speed limit for motorways? Will the Minister explain why we must wait until June for the new speed limits?

Mr. Rodgers: The 80 m.p.h. speed limit is not being adopted. We are maintaining the 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways because we believe that that is right in the circumstances. There is a considerable job of work to be done in changing from the present speed limits, and it is important that everyone should be aware when the change will occur. I think that the gap is reasonable enough. We are now moving to new limits that make good sense and will, by common consent, be welcomed and respected.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: As it has been suggested that the majority of motorists will welcome the increase and as travelling at more than 50 m.p.h. will be more expensive, does that not throw an odd light on the outcry about the increased petrol tax that was proposed in the Budget? Does my right hon. Friend reject that outcry?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that the outcry was something of a nonsense. It is a matter of individual choice. It is certainly the case that if one drives at more than 50 m.p.h. in a family car one consumes more petrol and pays higher costs. I assume that those who want to make a saving will take the necessary action and will remain below the speed limit.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that speed is a contributory factor to road accidents and that as a


direct result of his announcement today more people will be killed and injured on our roads? Are we not all guilty of having a schizophrenic approach to this matter? It is no use the House or the public throwing up their hands in favour of safety when such an approach is adopted. Is it not only fair to say that?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes, it is only fair to say that. All of us, including me, suffer from schizophrenia. We want to save life, but we like driving fast. Although we should all travel slowly, with a red flag in front of us, people do not choose to do that. We must strike a balance. It is dangerous in some respects, but that is life.

British Railways (Chairman)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the Chairman of British Railways.

Mr. William Rodgers: Later this month.

Mr. Forman: When the Secretary of State meets the Chairman of British Rail on 26th April, will he resist the Chairman's likely demand for a blurring of the distinction in British Rail's finances between investment payments and public service support? Would that not make it more difficult to secure the necessary transparency in British Rail's finances which is necessary to sustain the level of public understanding and support for British Rail's operational network?

Mr. Rodgers: The Chairman of British Rail does not usually make demands on me when I meet him, but I am willing to discuss—as I often do—such matters with Peter Parker. He is as anxious as I am to ensure that information is freely available so that the public can judge the performance of the railways.

Mr. Renton: Is the Secretary of State aware that many commuters in my constituency who normally travel by train

are considering travelling by coach because they cannot afford the rail season ticket? When he meets the Chairman of British Rail will he do what he can to ensure that British Rail will do nothing to obstruct the granting of licences to commuters who are planning to charter coaches?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail recognises the choices that people have, and that they are free properly to exercise them, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier this afternoon, we all regret the necessity of increasing rail fares. Many people find that travelling by train is convenient and the best way of going to work.

Mr. Townsend: Is the Minister aware that since 1974 commuter fares have risen by 90 per cent. on a cumulative basis and are likely to rise by another 7 per cent. a year over the next four years? Are the Government totally indifferent to the plight of commuters?

Mr. Rodgers: That is nonsense. I wish the House would face up to the realities of the situation. The Opposition are against increased public expenditure, but if railways are not paid for out of fares they must be paid for by subsidies, and those come from public expenditure raised from the taxpayers and ratepayers. Let us have a little more hard common sense about this matter—whatever conclusions we may reach.

Mr. Whitehead: When my right hon. Friend last met Peter Parker during his visit to the railway workshop in Derby this week, did he see the impressive and advanced technical work that is being done there? Is he aware of the high export potential in that work? Has he discussed with Mr. Parker what effect any freeze on investment that might be outlined in the coming White Paper would have on this high and advanced potential?

Mr. Rodgers: Questions relating to investment and exports appear later on the Order Paper. I was greatly impressed by the work that is being done at the railway workshops in Derby, both for British Rail and for export. The railways are in a high technology business and they have a great deal to be proud of by way of innovation.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When the Minister meets the Chairman of British Rail, will he ask him why he finds it so difficult to reply to the questions of Scottish hon. Members about the use of disgracefully old rolling stock in Scotland—sometimes on long routes? Will he ask the chairman to open his fat file of complaints about the lack of heating on these long-distance trains, which was very frequent during the winter? Will he ask whether the reports that numbers of restaurant cars, buffets and the like are to be reduced are idle threats?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the Chairman of British Rail will note what the hon. Lady said. If she was implying that he has not been replying to her letters, I hope that she will let me know.

Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Pigeons (Carriage by Rail)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the delay in reaching a decision on carriage of pigeons by British Railways.

Mr. Horam: I wrote to the hon. Member about this on 31st March. A memorandum has now been submitted to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and a final decision will be taken when the views of the CTCC are known. Meanwhile, British Rail is continuing to carry the traffic.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to continuing to carry pigeons, for which we are all grateful, British Rail has put up the price? Is that part of the tactics to drive them off the railways?

Mr. Horam: It is part of the tactics of British Rail's breaking even on its freight business, which it has to do by the end of the year.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable concern about this matter throughout the country and that pigeon racing is a pretty

harmless pastime, which gives a lot of enjoyment to thousands of people? Will he prevail upon British Rail to make some concessions?

Mr. Horam: The amount of time that British Rail has already devoted to this matter since the initial announcement in April last year shows the amount of concern that exists. I understand the point made by my hon Friend, but the CTCC has been brought in precisely to give the public point of view and I am sure that British Rail will take account of it.

Mr. Viggers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British Rail has increased its prices by between 75 per cent. and 200 per cent.? Is that fair for a sport that has such traditional and loyal enthusiasts?

Mr. Horam: The problem in British Rail's mind is one not of cost but simply the operational difficulties that arise from dealing with such livestock. If British Rail is to continue with this trade it should be costed properly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his views on public expenditure, would not want British Rail to proceed otherwise.

Mr. Flannery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although many of us are in favour of cut rates for the carriage of pigeons, we are terrified that if general fares go up much more British Rail will be carrying more pigeons than passengers? Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches may laugh, but they deplore the losses of British Rail, and we know that more public expenditure is needed. Will my hon. Friend make clear to Opposition Members, who would go mad if there were a one-day strike on the railways, that we must have public cash pushed into British Rail to keep it going and to enable it to carry more passengers than pigeons?

Mr. Horam: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's priorities. I do not think that I need to elaborate further.

Rural Bus Services

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce definite proposals designed to improve bus services in rural areas.

Mr. Horam: This subject will be included in the forthcoming White Paper on transport policy, but meanwhile the Government have accepted 98 per cent. of the total bid made by the shire counties for bus revenue support this year and are encouraging new initiatives where they can.

Mr. Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that action on rural transport is even more overdue in the light of last week's petrol price increases? Does he further agree that basic mobility is essential to the livelihood of country areas and that it is time that the Government acted quickly, since in the last three years they have steadfastly refused to take account of the transport problems facing country areas?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. We have a Bill going through the House to encourage experiments in rural areas. What worries me more than anything, in the light of the current situation, is that some Conservative-controlled county councils are threatening not to pay bus companies the money that they have received from the Government. This is extremely dangerous, because they are damaging the finances of bus companies and playing with something that the hon. Gentleman regards as important, namely, the community's bus services. Last year, North Cornwall failed to pay £250,000 that it had received in bus revenue support.

Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the maximum amount of public funds to be used to maintain bus services in rural areas but that we also need a far more radical approach to the provision of public transport in rural areas, apart from the conventional buses? Will the Government therefore put the maximum urgency behind the experiments to ensure that public transport is more widely available in rural areas?

Mr. Horam: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend says and I am sure that he is right. We must take into account the importance of transport to rural areas and we firmly intend to do that in the transport White Paper. We shall make every effort to be as positive as we can.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the items that are exacerbating relationships between some NBC companies, such as the Hants and Dorset Company, and district and county councils is the argument over concessionary fares? I welcome what the Minister has done with the NBC, but does he accept that it is our impression that the Government are distinctly unenthusiastic about rearranging concessionary fares for old folk? Will he therefore consider setting up an inquiry within his own Department so that it is not conducted by the NBC, which is a party to maintaining the status quo?

Mr. Horam: We are looking at the whole matter in the context of the White Paper discussions and we are giving it a high priority. It is a subject of great concern. The discrepancies that exist between some Labour and some Conservative authorities, which may be neighbours, are very serious and the hon. Gentleman should take account of that.

Buses (Licensing)

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for abolishing the bus licensing responsibilities of the traffic commissioners.

Mr. Horam: None at present, Sir. This is a matter that we are considering in our review of transport policy.

Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to pay tribute to the founder and members of the Society for the Preservation of Old Buildings in London, which is running a commuter bus service from Brighton to London and saving its 52 members £8 per week on the rail fare? Will he pay tribute to the free enterprise, ingenuity and excellence of the founder and members of this society?

Mr. Horam: A great deal of effort went into that initiative, but it produced only one journey to London—and not even a return journey. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about trying to solve the problems that we all know exists he should make a much more considered contribution. It is too easy to be primitive about these matters.

Policy (Consultation Document)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Consultation Document on Transport Policy.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have received a great variety of representations.

Mr. Canavan: Bearing in mind that some of the best representations have come from trade unions in the transport service, will my right hon. Friend emphasise the importance to employers in that service of giving full and adequate recognition to trade unions and trade union agreements? Is it not disgraceful that the Shadow Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales should pretend to represent the interests of the people of Scotland and Wales while maintaining their connections with a crowd of international pirates, such as Globtik Tankers?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the appropriate answer is "Yes". Reverting to my hon. Friend's initial point in the opening part of his supplementary question, I entirely agree that many of the representations from trade unions have been extremely helpful and very constructive. I hope that both sides of the industry, particularly in the public transport sector, will attempt to ensure that we have a system that meets the needs of our people, whether in town or in country.

Mr. Bowden: Is the Secretary of State fully aware how angry the National Association of Rail Passengers is at his consistent refusal to meet a deputation of its members to discuss the consultation document? Does he recall that at the last Question Time on transport matters his hon. Friend undertook to review the matter, but that I have heard nothing from him? Will he now agree to meet a deputation from the NARP, which represents commuters who at the moment are going through hell?

Mr. Rodgers: I am very sorry if they are angry. I do not think that the National Association of Rail Passengers can claim an exclusive right to represent commuters. I believe that the association has made representations to the Chairman of British Rail, who is in fact to meet some of its members. I am always prepared to receive anything in writing and am happy to consider it.

Mr. Moate: The consultation document touched on the question of the taxation of heavy goods vehicles. Will the Secretary of State clarify the Government's intentions in that respect? As the Chancellor has now taken steps to increase licence fees, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the industry, so that it can plan ahead, that there will be no further increases in licence fees in the foreseeable future?

Mr. Rodgers: No, I cannot give that assurance, and the House would not expect me to do so. It was for the Chancellor to make the decision. As my right hon. Friend explained to the House, he bore in mind at the time the extent to which there was general agreement that tilting the vehicle excise duty to heavy goods vehicles made good sense. It may be that it should go a good deal further.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast majority of representations made to him about British Rail are to the effect that the present network should, by and large, be maintained? Will he also confirm that amongst those representations are views that it is desirable that the correct amount of investment should be provided in order that those services should be maintained at a proper level? Does he agree that some of the representations concerned the diesel multiple units, which are now 20 years old and therefore need investment to provide the kind of service that is required in many rural areas?

Mr. Rodgers: I confirm that a number of representations have been made on the lines of my hon. Friend's remarks. I fully recognise the importance of future investment levels. I sometimes feel that we fail to emphasise the extent to which the railways have a continuing and central rôle in our public transport policy and a great deal of which to be proud. I wish that people would not always take too gloomy a view. However, I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties.

Mr. Spriggs: What effect is the present investment policy having on the repair and maintenance of British Rail's coaching stock and rail track, and what is it likely to be in future when the new investment figures are known?

Mr. Rodgers: There is not a great deal of argument about the present levels


of investment being adequate for immediate purposes, but there is a good deal of discussion about what may happen five years and more ahead. These considerations were very much in my mind during the consultations, and they will inevitably be commented upon when the White Paper is published.

British Railways (Exports)

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for further encouraging British Railways export potential in the light of the £40 million export order recently secured by British Rail Engineering Limited for rolling stock for Kenya.

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for further encouraging British Railways export potential, in the light of the £40 million export order recently secured by Britsh Rail Engineering Limited for rolling stock for Kenya.

Mr. William Rodgers: The Board's achievement in Kenya is greatly to its credit and I shall do whatever I can to support further such initiatives.

Mr. Cook: Has my right hon. Friend taken on board the repeated statement by BREX—the British Rail export combine—and BR-Metro that unless there is more investment in British Rail there will not be a sufficient home market from which to seek export orders? Would it not be tragic if British Rail and its industries were to be excluded from growing export markets because of lack of sufficient investment at home?

Mr. Rodgers: In the course of my visit to Derby this week these matters were in my mind when I met senior representatives of the Board. With respect, I think that my hon. Friend makes a connection, which I find is often made but seldom justified, between home and overseas markets in all kinds of different commodities. There is a huge home market in any case for modern railway equipment. I believe that the British Railways Board can build upon that and its recent achievements in Kenya, because exports are important for the country, for industry and for employment.

Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend has been very generous in his tributes to

British Rail Engineering Ltd. Will he acknowledge the initiatives taken by the National Union of Railwaymen regarding exports of British Rail materials? Will he, in an endeavour to increase export potential, see that British Rail workshops are tooled to and kept working at the maximum, so that we can have all the rolling stock that we need to keep the railways going? Will he encourage British Rail Engineering to tool up, to invest and to proceed with its export potential?

Mr. Rodgers: Yes. I was impressed by British Rail's resources. I met a number of members of the NUR who are employed at the Derby works. They have first-rate equipment and are anxious to continue doing a good job by keeping the workshops full of work. It is important to them, and I shall do all that I can to help them.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that British Rail has adequate risk capital to take up these jumbo-size contracts abroad? What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Department of Trade to ensure that export credit facilities are available?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that I am satisfied. I keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to ensure that export credit facilities are available. It is important that British Rail should be competitive in these respects.

White Paper

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his transport White Paper.

Mr. William Rodgers: I still hope to do so about the end of May.

Mr. Newton: May I put in a plea to the Secretary of State that the White Paper should deal more seriously with the commuting problem than in the consultation document, in his speech in the recent debate on transport, or, frankly, in his answers earlier today? In particular, before he makes further cracks about public expenditure, will he ensure that serious consideration is given to the expenditure that could arise if more commuters were forced on to the roads or if more firms


were driven out of London because of their employees' travel problems?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman should be careful in his choice of words. I made no crack about public expenditure; I simply sought to remind the House that we cannot have it both ways. It is necessary to face reality, whatever conclusion we may reach about the levels of subsidies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is still a high level of subsidy to commuters in the London area. Of course it is necessary to take account of the alternative costs that would arise if rail commuters took to road. We have discussed these matters many times in the House. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman's debate on Friday had to be curtailed. That was no fault of mine.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend again take note that the Conservative Party, while having a policy against public expenditure, is asking for more public expenditure? Does he accept that on this point the Opposition are in a cleft stick, from which they can never escape as long as that is their line?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is right. Labour Members have always argued, and rightly so, that there was a substantial case for a subsidy to public transport. I appreciate the difficulties of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have constituency interests which they must fairly represent, but we also have a job to educate the public to the reality of public expenditure. Money does not grow on trees; it is raised through rates and taxes, which nobody likes to pay.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that in his Budget Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there were "reasons of transport policy" for increasing the petrol tax? Will he say what those reasons of transport policy are? Surely the reasons of transport policy in rural areas are totally against such an increase.

Mr. Rodgers: I think that it is generally recognised that there is a need to make sure that a proper balance is maintained between private motoring and public transport. As the House recognised, heavy goods vehicles should pay a higher proportion of their true costs. This is a matter concerned not only with having a heavier vehicle excise duty, but

with the cost of fuel. The whole question of rural transport is far more complicated than the price of fuel. I shall have to deal with that matter in my White Paper.

St. Neots (Ring Road and Bypass)

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement about progress made towards building the ring road at and a bypass for St. Neots in Huntingdonshire.

Mr. Horam: The inner ring road is a matter for Cambridgeshire County Council. Preliminary investigations for a trunk road bypass are in progress.

Sir D. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the most heavily used route between the East Coast ports and the Midland manufacturing towns is the A45, which passes through the centre of the old town of St. Neots, with its narrow streets causing terrible congestion? Therefore, there is as great a need for this bypass as for any other in the country. Will he give the House some idea of the starting date for that bypass?

Mr. Horam: I accept and understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about this matter. As he will know from the recent Consolidated Fund Bill debate, I share that concern. The road will probably not start until the early 1980s. We are now starting on the preliminary work, and it will take some time before we can begin constriction.

Rural Transport

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached on representations about rural transport received since the publication of the consultation document.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached on representations about rural transport received since the publication of the consultation document.

Mr. Horam: I cannot anticipate the content of the forthcoming White Paper on transport. My right hon. Friend's conclusions will be set out there.

Mr. Crouch: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that answer to be completely inadequate for the terribly serious


problem of today? People living in rural areas are desperately concerned. Does the Minister realise that some people are in danger of being stranded in country areas because they are unable to afford the fares to go to see relatives in hospital, to go to the chemist's to get a prescription serviced, or just to see their friends? Will he do something with the National Bus Company to try to right this position, because the National Bus Company seems to be completely out of touch with the problems of the people?

Mr. Horam: As this is a large problem it demands a proper and considered review, as I said earlier. The hon. Gentleman should take on board the fact that many county councils—they are almost exclusively Conservative-controlled county councils—are threatening not to pay over to the National Bus Company, in particular, money that we have given them for bus revenue. The NCB now fears that it may be far short of the money that it requires if this trend continues. I urge hon. Members opposite to talk to their county councillors and urge them to settle this matter quickly, otherwise people will be stranded in rural areas and it will be the fault of their councillors.

Mr. Morrison: Given the latest increase in petrol tax, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation in rural areas has become much more urgent? Does he recall the supplementary question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) on Question No. 11, in which his hon. Friend expressed a great deal of common sense? Does he recall that he replied that his hon. Friend was quite right? If the hon. Member for Sowerby was right, why does not the Minister do something about it?

Mr. Horam: Of course I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) said, and I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. It has been made more urgent, and it continues to be a problem that escalates the entire time. We must therefore reach sensible and sympathetic conclusions.

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will visit the Swansea Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre.

Mr. Horam: My right hon. Friend hopes to visit Swansea. I have myself visited the centre twice.

Mr. Adley: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the complacent answer that he gave us at the last transport Question Time was considered by some to have been amazing, by others to have been insulting, and by almost everybody to have been unsatisfactory? Is he aware that many of my constituents find a grave discrepancy between his satisfaction and their experience? Will he please ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind, when he visits the centre, that many people are far less satisfied than he is?

Mr. Horam: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that it is fair to say that the situation, which once was very unsatisfactory—I concede that readily—has systematically improved over the past nine months or so. The Automobile Association specifically acknowledged this a couple of months ago. So there is objective motorist-oriented evidence that the Swansea centre has continued to improve its performance to the public. However, I accept that it should aim for the highest standards.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that the time taken to process vehicle ownership registration changes at the centre is causing considerable difficulties in certain sectors of the motor trade? Will he undertake to look into this as a matter of great urgency, with a view to speeding it up?

Mr. Horam: The position at present is that registration documents take between eight and nine days, on average, and that 75 per cent. are currently being dealt with within 10 days. I accept that there is concern about this, although from the point of view of the ordinary motorist this aspect is not as time-critical as is his vehicle licence.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is my hon. Friend aware that if one case goes wrong at Swansea the centre seems to be paralysed completely and cannot untie itself?

Mr. Horam: The problem is that there is a very large turnover at Swansea and a small percentage of mistakes leads to a large absolute number of mistakes. It is a problem common to computerised bureaucratic systems. As I said before, we are continually trying to improve the situation, and I hope that we are succeeding.

Mr. Moate: May I remind the Under-Secretary that in its Ninth Report, published a few weeks ago, the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments criticised the Government for the methods that they have adopted to deal with the transfer of cherished number plates at Swansea? What steps are the Government taking to revise the regulations to meet those express criticisms of the Select Committee?

Mr. Horam: We are looking closely at the regulations and how they are working. We are trying to meet individual cases as they arise and in so far as they are proven to be ones that we can meet. In general, we are being as flexible as we possibly can be.

M25 (Extensions)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an assurance that the statutory processes which will precede the construction of that part of the M25—the North Orbital extension—from Micklefield Green to South Mimms will be instituted at an early date, and that that section of the M25 will be timed for construction at the same time as or earlier than the Egham-Maple Cross section.

Mr. Horam: The M25 is a top priority road, and we shall publish draft orders for the section between Micklefield Green and South Mimms at the earliest practicable date. Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures and to the availability of funds, it is expected that construction of the sections between the Heathrow Airport spur and Maple Cross and between Micklefield Green and South Mimms will both begin in 1981.

Mr. Tuck: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the people of Watford are desperately hoping that he will speedily relieve the A41 and the A405 of the traffic congestion to which

they are subjected and that if the construction of the Micklefield Green-South Mimms section is delayed or the Egham-Maple Cross section is done first it will intensify and prolong the misery that the residents of North Watford are experiencing?

Mr. Horam: I am indeed aware of the misery of the people of Watford—[Laughter]—only because they were graphically explained to me at great length by my hon. Friend when he saw me last week. I am sure—as he says—that it is entirely a consequence of the traffic going along the A41 and the A405. There cannot be any other reason. I therefore accepted, as I continue to accept, that we must try to relieve this at the earliest possible moment. This has the highest national priority.

Mr. Forman: As the M25 is intended to orbit round to the south of London to join up, one day, to the north end of the M23, can the Under-Secretary now assure the House that he will not extend the M3 beyond its present terminal point at Hooley?

Mr. Horam: I cannot give the House that assurance at present. None the less, we are aware of the very strong feeling that has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) on a number of occasions. We will certainly bear that point in mind.

Disabled Persons (Vehicles)

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what work has been done by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in the search for a suitable vehicle for issue to severely disabled drivers.

Mr. Horam: A system to help certain severely disabled people, known as "drive by wire", has emerged from the Laboratory's work on applications of automation to road transport. This system enables the disabled driver to work the controls electronically through minimum pressure on a conveniently placed knob or joystick, the position of which can be varied to meet different needs. The system has been installed in a small production car and is now being tested on the road. Any question of issue of vehicles to disabled people is a matter for my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister accept that many disabled drivers, especially the young disabled now seeking their first job, are placed in a hopeless position because they are no longer receiving a tricycle, and the mobility allowance is so inadequate that it prevents them from purchasing a vehicle? Will the hon. Gentleman apply himself to bringing the manufacturers together with a view to agreeing on a suitable vehicle for disabled people, which can be produced at discount prices?

Mr. Horam: Yes. Last week I talked to officials of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory about this matter. We are anxious to bring people together with a view to finding out what is available throughout the world in the way of cars for the disabled. We must also consider how to produce this at a reduced cost. We therefore have the matter well in hand.

Mr. Carter-Jones: There is no single vehicle that is applicable to all the disabled. What we need is a flexible approach to this matter. In reply to the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to answer Questions as well, is he?

Mr. Carter-Jones: It is a national characteristic, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is no universal vehicle that is suitable for all disabled people? Will he take up the point made by the hon. Member for Exeter, who has a good record in this matter, that where employment is involved his Department and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled should bring pressure to bear in the Department of Employment to make provision for people who obtain jobs to have the opportunity to get to work? That is the key to the problem. Will my hon. Friend please look at it?

Mr. Horam: I undertake to talk to to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about this matter. We are already discussing it with the Department of Health and Social

Security, but, if my hon Friend feels it important for me to talk to my right hon. Friend as well, I take his point on board.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Whitelaw: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Easter Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir.
The business for the week following the Easter Recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 19TH APRIL—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 20TH APRIL—Opening of the debate on the White Paper on direct elections to the European Assembly, Command No. 6768.
THURSDAY 21ST APRIL—Supply [13th Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced later.
Motion on EEC Documents R/2126/75, R/3186/76, R/898/76 and R/2384/76 on food labelling.
FRIDAY 22ND APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 25TH APRIL—Conclusion of the debate on the White Paper on direct elections to the European Assembly.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is there any very good reason for not having the debate on direct elections to the European Parliament on two consecutive days? It seems an extraordinary procedure to split it up in this way. We made it clear that we would be only too ready to have our Supply Day on the Monday rather than on the Thursday after our return, in order to have two consecutive days for the debate on the White Paper on direct elections. On what motion will the debate arise?

Mr. Foot: I expect that the debate will arise, at any rate on the first day, on a motion for the Adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman has asked why the debate is to be split. When we were considering having a two-day debate in the week after our return, many representations were made to us that such a


course would be inconvenient, in some respects, for some hon. Members from different parties who will be participating in the affairs in Europe during that week and that some of them want the opportunity of taking part in our debate here. We therefore sought to serve that convenience as well as the general convenience of the House.

Mr. Powell: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be making a statement on the establishment of a conference to sit under your Chairmanship, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any date at present, but I assure him that the Government are pursuing the undertaking that we gave to the House during the debates a week or two ago.

Mr. Jay: On what motion will the debate on the White Paper on direct elections be taken?

Mr. Foot: I suggested that on the Wednesday, the first day of the debate, it should take place on a motion for the Adjournment. Perhaps that would also be the most convenient procedure for the following Monday.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two weeks ago he undertook to me, and a week ago undertook to one of his hon. Friends, that a statement would be made on the problem of the inner cities? When is it to be?

Mr. Foot: There is to be a statement on it today. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman did not receive fuller notice.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman get his diary synchronised with the diaries of those of us who go to the European Parliament? Will he not reconsider the whole question of having a debate on direct elections in the one week in the month that the European Parliament is meeting in Strasbourg?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Lady has illustrated the problems that we have in this matter. She now asks that we should not have the debate at all during the week of our return from the Easter Recess, whereas the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked for the whole debate to be taken during

that week. We have to take account of representations from both those important parts of the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: Has the time not come when the House should debate the chaos caused by local government reorganisation and the abuse of power by Tory-dominated councils such as that in Leicestershire, which has removed travel concessions from the old, the blind and home helps?

Mr. Foot: I fully agree with my hon. and learned Friend, as I am sure the great mass of people do, about the inconvenience caused in so many parts of the country by the so-called local government reform put through by the Conservatives. If we were to change it all at once, the repercussions would last a long time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Could we not have the debate on the European elections on the Monday and Tuesday of the week after the week in which we come back? That would meet the convenience of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). On the Wednesday thus left free, could we not perhaps debate inter-party relations on a take-note motion?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure that that would be the best way to discuss such matters. All these questions on the subject of the debate on direct elections illustrate the difficulty of satifying everyone in all parts of the House. I think that the debate as arranged will enable the House as a whole and hon. Members in all parts of it, whatever their connections with other assemblies or bodies in Europe, to take part.

Mr. John Mendelson: But would not my right hon. Friend accept that, as this will be the first major debate on direct elections after the publication of the White Paper, it would be far more coherent if two days were allocated consecutively in the second week after our return? As there will not be too much time, given that Easter intervenes and quite a number of people will not use that period to prepare themselves through study of the subject, and that the country should have an opportunity to consider the problem, would not everyone be served much better if my right hon. Friend agreed to having the debate on the two


consecutive days of Monday and Tuesday of the week after that in which we return, and not split the debate up?

Mr. Foot: No doubt it would serve some of my hon. Friends better if that arrangement were made, but the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made representations in the opposite sense, asking that the whole of the two-day debate should be held in the first week. We have tried to meet the difficulties of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I do not think that dividing the debate, with a few days between the two parts, is necessarily disadvantageous. It has occurred on many previous occasions. It can assist the process of digestion in between the two days.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the Government's shattering defeat last night, will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make an early statement withdrawing his outrageous proposals for Scottish teacher training or, if he is not willing to budge, announcing his resignation?

Mr. Foot: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland issued was a consultative document. What happened yesterday was part of the consultations.

Mr. Faulds: When can my right hon. Friend provide time for the Leader of the Opposition—God help the Tory Party!—to state the new and totally irresponsible Tory position on immigrants and their dependants?

Mr. Foot: That is a matter for the Opposition to sort out, if they can.

Mr. Budgen: When will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to discuss the problem of immigration, bearing in mind that, on 9th February, the Home Secretary, when he was dealing with the Franks Committee Report, said that he would welcome such a debate, and that, on 22nd March, the Home Secretary laid before the House new rules concerning the entry of fiancés into this country? Both these issues should be debated by the House.

Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are matters which should

be debated in the House at some stage and that it would be convenient if the two points he mentioned were debated at the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has urged that we should have a separate debate on the rules, and I shall certainly consider the suggestion that he has made. We would hope, if we can, to be able to arrange the debates on the same day.

Mr. Spearing: With regard to the debate on direct elections, does my right hon. Friend agree that the representations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were for two consecutive days, not necessarily in the first week when we return? Would my right hon. Friend not accept that holding the debate on Monday and Tuesday, 25th and 26th April, is much more appropriate than splitting this very important debate, particularly since Easter comes between the time of the issue of the White Paper and the reconvening of the House?

Mr. Foot: The representations from right hon. and hon. Members opposite were not only on the question of having the two days of debate together. There were also representations asking that we should have the debate in the week when we return. My hon. Friends will be able to put their case during the debates that have been fixed, and I do not believe they will suffer any injury whatsoever in the presentation of their case by what we have proposed.

Mr. Biffen: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he has just given to his hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)? The debate on direct elections to the Strasbourg Assembly is of immense constitutional significance to the status of this House of Commons. Would it not be more appropriate if the debate were to take place on consecutive days rather than that we should have a fractured debate?

Mr. Foot: I do not think there is any proposition for having a fractured debate. There have been many occasions in the history of this House when there has been an interval of a few days between the first day of a debate and the second day. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the great importance of this matter


for this House. That is why the Government have presented the question in a consultative document of this kind which sets out the various options. The House will be able to discuss them and will have a full opportunity for doing so.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that there are two major statements to follow.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can we not have a two-day debate on direct elections during the fortnight after Easter and use the Wednesday immediately after Easter to have two debates—a general debate on immigration, called for by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), followed by a debate on the immigration rules, which require specific treatment because there are issues of principle that are divorced from the general immigration issue?

Mr. Foot: No doubt many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members could suggest a whole series of different subjects to discuss on any day of the week when we return. But that would mean the loss of a day to the days available to the Government and the House for general discussion. Taking into account all the different factors, I believe that what we have proposed is the best for the House as a whole. It takes into account representations that have been made in many quarters of the House.

Mr. Crouch: Will the Leader of the House try to find some advantage out of what appears to be the disadvantage of splitting the debate on direct elections? May I suggest that there is a possible advantage in having a period of reflection of a few days between the first and second days provided that we can reach a conclusion on the first day and then consider some specific points on the second day?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that would be for the convenience of the House. I believe that a more general debate over the two days will serve the interest of the House as a whole.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend not reconsider the answer that he has given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Surely it is not beyond the wit

of the Lord President to have further discussions with the Opposition on this matter. Will my right hon. Friend for once stop being stubborn in relation to what this House wants and actually take note of the feelings of hon. Members? There are many discussions that we could have on the Wednesday we return. It seems that the feeling of the House is that we should have a two-day discussion and, if that it what the House wants, we ought to have it.

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend may have his own definition of stubbornness. It is not only a question of taking into account the representations that he has made—and he is perfectly entitled to make them. It is partly as a consequence of this kind of representation and consideration that we have proposed the second day of the debate in the subsequent week. What was desired by some hon. Members was that we should have the two-day debate in the first week after we return, but the Government took the view that we would not be serving the interests of my hon. Friends, and many other hon. Members, if we did that. I recommend what we propose to the House.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the problems of those in the building industry from whom No. 714 certificates have been withheld and who face joining a growing dole queue as a result?

Mr. Foot: I cannot offer a special debate at the moment, but I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman has proposed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—>

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call another two hon. Members from each side of the House.

Mr. Roper: Will my right hon. Friend remember that 33 hon. Members from all sides of the House will be in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe Assembly during the week beginning 25th April, and if he were to switch the debate to that week it would mean that they would not have a chance to take part?

Mr. Foot: That is one of the considerations that we have taken into account, but if we were to hold the debate


in either of those weeks it would be of inconvenience to some hon. Members in some parts of the House.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is the Leader of the House aware that another casualty last night was the unlamented Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill? In view of imminence of Easter, and the GLC elections, will the Leader of the House undertake not to bring this Bill forward before the elections when, with any luck, the whole thing will be lost?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's question relates to Private Business, which is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend remember last business questions when I asked for a debate on fishing and he said that we could deal with it on Monday night? There was deep resentment on all sides of the House at the fact that it was assumed than in 1½ hours we could have any kind of consistent fisheries debate. Will my right hon. Friend now undertake to give a full day for discussion of questions which are becoming more critical as each day passes?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise my hon. Friend another full day on the subject, but I shall look at the possibilities of the matter being raised on some other occasion. I also recommend to my hon. Friend that there are other occasions, apart from those specified by the Government, when matters can be raised in the House.

Mr. Forman: With regard to another important subject, will the Leader of the House find time to allow the House to debate the Flowers Report, since it is many months since that important report was published? If Parliament is to be properly consulted, it makes sense that it should have the opportunity to express its view before the publication of the Government's White Paper and not after it.

Mr. Foot: Many important subjects have been raised. The choice of subjects for debate lies not only in the hands of the Government but in the hands of others, too. The hon. Gentleman might make representations to his own Front Bench.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is now 4.12 p.m. and there are many hon. Members still desiring to speak on the important point about when the direct elections debate is to be held. As on some occasions we have had longer periods of business questions, may I appeal to you to allow some more expression of opinion until every hon. Member who wishes has had a chance to make his point?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not know any better than I know what questions hon. Members wish to ask. He may guess. I often guess, and then I move on.

INNER CITIES (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Government policy for the inner cities. My right hon. Friend will be commenting separately on the Scottish aspects.
Since the autumn my colleagues and I have been re-examining the problems that affect our major urban centres. In our work we have been able to draw upon the material prepared in a whole series of reports, not least the recently completed inner area studies carried out in Birmingham, Lambeth and Liverpool, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) who initiated these three major studies in 1972. On the evidence before us, there can be little doubt that, whilst previous Governments of both parties have paid increasing attention to urban problems, the extent and the changed character of the inner city problems is only now becoming fully understood.
During the post-war period policies have concentrated on encouraging the export of inner city populations and on large-scale, comprehensive redevelopment to provide new homes. But too little attention has been paid to the economic health and to the community interests of the inner areas.
Over the past decade inner cities have suffered a massive and disproportionate loss of jobs and a major exodus of population. Substantial ethnic minorities in


some cities have added an extra dimension of difficulty. The old problems of poor housing—and, in some areas, congestion—have still to be overcome, but in many areas they have been joined by the new problems of high unemployment, decay and dereliction, unbalanced population structure, with disproportionate numbers of the disadvantaged and the elderly, and an accompanying loss of internal morale and external confidence.
A new direction is now needed for our urban policies. We must check and, where possible, halt the decline of the inner areas. Extra money will help but will not provide the sole solution. We need to secure better use of existing resources to work positively in favour of these areas. Above all, we have to shift the emphasis of Government policy and bring about changes in the attitudes of local authorities, of industry and of institutions.
Our proposals are in summary as follows. First, we shall give a new priority in the main policies and programmes of Government so that they contribute to a better life in these inner areas. We have already moved strongly in this direction in housing through our stress area policy and in local government finance through the needs element of the rate support grant. An inner area dimension is needed in other main programmes. Similarly, local authorities, which must be the main agents for action, should rethink their own priorities and give a new inner area emphasis to their policies and organisation.
Secondly, we need a more unified approach to urban problems. As the Prime Minister has announced today, responsibility for the urban programme will be transferred to my Department and in Wales to the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, our immediate priority must be to strengthen the economies of these areas. Subject only to priority for regional policy, suitable firms will be encouraged to establish themselves in the inner areas of the major cities. We shall introduce legislation to enhance the powers of local authorities with serious inner area problems to enable them to assist industry and to designate industrial improvement areas. We shall encourage local authorities to give more consideration

to the needs of industry, particularly of small firms, in their planning policies.
Fourthly, our policies on population movement, national as well as local, need review and change. I made an announcement about the new towns to the House yesterday.
Fifthly, the Government have decided to recast the urban programme to cover economic and environmental as well as social projects and to increase it. A large measure of priority will be given in the early years to the regeneration of the inner areas of the major cities, but other cities and towns will have access to it on an increasing scale in later years.
Sixthly, the Government propose to offer special partnerships to the authorities—both districts and counties—of certain cities. This will involve the joint preparation of inner area programmes in order to secure a coherent across-the-board approach to their problems. Urban grants will be paid and related to these new inner area programmes.
We propose in the light of the inner area studies to offer partnerships to Liverpool and Birmingham, to Manchester-Salford, which have severe and large-scale inner urban problems, and in London to Lambeth and to the docklands authorities, which are ready to start a major programme of urban renewal. The Government will consider proposals for partnership from other authorities with major inner area problems. It will be necessary, however, to limit strictly the selection if the best use is to be made of extra resources.
Outside the partnership arrangement authorities will be able to prepare inner area programmes, and the Government will consider linking urban grants to those programmes, though necessarily on a modest scale in the early years. Work on a comprehensive community programme with Gateshead will continue.
I have already referred to the recasting of the urban programme. We intend to increase it from the present level of under £30 million to £125 million a year in 1979–80. I hope that it will be possible to increase it further in later years. Our intention is that this will form a continuing commitment of about £1,000 million over the next decade.
As launching aid, the Chancellor has announced an extra sum for construction


works in certain inner cities of which over £80 million will be available in England to be spent over the next two years. We shall be in touch with major authorities, particularly in the partnership areas, about projects in inner areas which will form part of the scheme. These will enable a start to be made in advance of the preparation of inner area programmes, which will inevitably take some time to prepare, and will, of course, cover current as well as capital expenditure.
The Government intend to lay a White Paper before Parliament as soon as possible, and to invite the House to debate the Government's proposals.

Mr. Eyre: The Government's attention to the serious problems of the inner cities is to be welcomed, following the report commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker).
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his statement will need careful study and early debate? Does he realise that the resources allocated—a modest transfer of funds to the urban programme, plus £100 million over two years by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—are trivial against the background of the enormous problems affecting inner areas, even when great areas of urban deprivation are postponed from consideration for many years and resources are concentrated on a small number of the most seriously affected areas? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even this allocation is misleading because, by an earlier statement, he has taken £57 million away from the housing associations that are carrying out a great deal of improvement work and conversions in these very areas?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we on this side of the House understand the difficulties of capital expenditure, but that we find particularly disappointing his lack of response to suggestions, put to him frequently from these Benches, that commercial and industrial assets in the new towns should be sold and the capital moneys released to help inner city areas, without recourse to further public borrowing?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an essential requirement for jobs is to attract greater investment from

companies and individuals, and that we strongly support the emphasis put on the contribution that small businesses can make? However, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that changed policies on the part of the Government to encourage wealth and job creators are essential?
Will the Secretary of State accept that the Opposition view with anxiety his proposal to continue using the needs element of the rate support grant to transfer money from country areas to the cities?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement lacks new initiatives, which are necessary to involve city dwellers more directly in controlling their own lives rather than being dominated by officialdom? Much further thought will have to be given to neighbourhood concepts involving individuals and families in a more positive way.

Mr. Shore: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I note his welcome, and I accept that my statement and, indeed, the White Paper when it comes will need and deserve careful study, and we shall make sure that it gets that in the House of Commons.
Although the hon. Gentleman welcomed the statement, I think that it is a little odd of him to reproach me for not making sufficient resources available for the inner areas and at the same time to express his anxiety that the needs element of the rate support grant is being used for precisely the purpose of giving resources to the areas of greatest need.
We have to be honest with each other about tackling this problem of the inner cities. I believe, and hope, that the Opposition parties will share with and join us in trying to solve this extremely difficult and intractable question. I hope, therefore, that we shall get their support for the general policies that we are seeking to outline. I hope, too, that in the course of time, if they are convinced that there is more to be done, they will themselves encourage the further public expenditure that is required—or may be required—in these areas, and that they will do all that they can to assist us.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be


well received by those of us who represent inner city areas, and that the part of his statement indicating that a White Paper will be published and discussed later in the House is also acceptable, although long overdue? May I press my right hon. Friend further about partnerships, because Leeds, the city in which my constituency is situated, is not included in the list? That city is among the six largest in England which made a joint submission to him in February for additional aid to assist inner city deprivation. Does his statement mean that no additional assistance will be available for cities other than those on the list?

Mr. Speaker: I appeal to hon. Members. Everyone will have seen that half those right hon. and hon. Members present wish to be called. If all hon. Members make such long statements, I shall not be able to call a third of those seeking to catch my eye.

Mr. Shore: I have announced the names of those cities with which I believe we should enter into partnership discussions. There will, of course, be others that will wish to be considered. I do not exclude the possibility of further partnership areas, but I must stress that we shall have to apply very strict conditions indeed for eligibility.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Will the Secretary of State be more explicit about what he means by "special partnership arrangements"? In his statement on new towns yesterday, the Secretary of State stressed the link between new town development and inner city problems. Does he not agree that the vast assets created for the new towns and perimeter estates of cities are part of the inner city renewal? Does he not see that assets created in new towns and outer perimeter estates of cities should be used, rolled over, and made available as a resource for the renewal of inner cities?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider whether there is any possible additional resource that can be tapped. I do not wish to go further than that at present.
We have in mind that a partnership committee should be established in each of these areas. It would include representatives of the main Government Departments and representatives of the

main local authorities concerned. Other important interests, such as health and other services, could also be drawn in.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the one reason great manufacturing companies have left the centre of London and built new places elsewhere is the massive subsidies that the Government have offered them as a deliberate policy to move industry away from London to the regions? Is my right hon. Friend announcing a reversal of that policy? Can he assure the House that companies that want to take up their roots from London and put them down somewhere else will not continue to receive the subsidies that they have received in the past?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend invites me to pronounce a death sentence on regional policy. Since I am connected with the London area, I understand fully that that is an attractive proposal, on the face of it, but it would be great folly if, at this stage, we began to abandon regional policy.
We need to do two things. First, we must shift the emphasis intra-regionally. We must give an intra-regional bias in favour of inner city areas. In London and the South-East, for instance, we must have industrial location bias in favour of inner city areas as opposed to the rest of the South-East. That would apply to other inner cities, including those in assisted areas. A striking feature is that there is a differential between the inner cities and their surrounding areas in both the assisted and non-assisted areas.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us will welcome the removal of responsibility for the urban aid programme from the Home Office to his Department? That is right. Is he aware that many of us will be disappointed that the areas of high unemployment in London and Birmingham will not be treated in a way similar to areas of high unemployment in other parts of the country? Is he aware that there will be disappointment among those who started the shift in the rate support grant that much of the shift has not gone to the benefit of inner city areas but has been spread among cities as a whole? Will he take some action to deal with that?
Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us will remain disappointed that the Government are to give only an additional £50 million for the construction industry programme next year when they will be paying £600 million in unemployment and social security benefits to unemployed construction workers?

Mr. Shore: If I can find a way of bringing more of our unemployed resources into use without adding to the size of the public sector borrowing requirement, I shall do so. If the right hon. Gentleman can suggest ways to square that sum, I shall be interested to hear them. The rate support grant and the movement of resources through the needs element is not a perfect instrument for ensuring either that money is distributed to the areas of particular need, or, when it reaches those authorities, that they spend it. That is why an additional supplementary grant directly related to inner city programmes is an important stimulus to local authorities. They have a good deal to do in rethinking their priorities for helping inner city areas.

Mr. Strauss: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will give pleasure to those who represent decaying or decayed inner cities? Is he aware that I was particularly gratified by his mention of Lambeth? That borough, as no doubt some other areas have, has important and large rehabilitation schemes. But in London they have been savagely cut by my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Government, for reasons that we understand.
The proposals are long term. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider short-term help by permitting at least some of the rehabilitation proposals that have been turned down to be carried out? Will he allow his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction to see a deputation from the area, since he has refused to see a deputation from the Lambeth Borough Council on this matter? Will he look into that?

Mr. Shore: I shall certainly take that up with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. My right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) may not have seen the reply that I made today to a Question

about the new borrowing arrangements for local authority housing programmes. The arrangements that we have announced will enable local authorities to increase their spending on rehabilitation and other programmes. I do not accept that there have been savage cuts in London or inner city area housing programmes. We have done our utmost, by designating stress areas and by allocations under other programmes, to safeguard them.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister realise that this method of announcing Scottish inner city area programmes is a disgrace? Why is the Secretary of State for Scotland not here today to answer questions on the participation agreements and the legislation that these measures will entail? Why is it that England deserves a full statement on this matter but Scotland has to make do with only a Written Answer?

Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman is not treating the House with the seriousness that it deserves. He knows perfectly well that the Secretary of State for Scotland has, in a sense, foreshadowed many of these events by his announcement on the East End of Glasgow some time ago. Further, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement himself shortly.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that cities such as Hull, although they have their own stress areas, will be very disappointed by his statement? The statement has given no indication whatever of how the medium-sized cities, which were deprived of their independent representation by the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), will be dealt with under these proposals. We have had no benefit whatever, or very little benefit, from regional policies. What will be done to help our inner, decaying cities, where we have the same intensity of problems as many of these other areas that have had a bigger slice of the cake for a long time?

Mr. Shore: There are many ways in which the problems that beset Hull can best be tackled. It may be that the greatest contribution the Government can make is not so much in the context of inner city policy but in the context of industrial and regional policy. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not unsympathetic to Hull, for very good reasons. I


am not telling the House that I am not aware that most of our cities have problems, but what I have had to do, because this is the only realistic way to proceed, is to concentrate what resources we have on the areas of greatest need.

Mr. Baker: Will not the Secretary of State agree that the first essential step is to revive the economic life of the inner cities? If that does not happen, all the money spent on social expenditure will go into a bottomless bucket. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in London, if we are to create more jobs in manufacturing and commerce, we have to change many old-established planning attitudes? Would it not give more encouragement to London if the Secretary of State were able to announce an ending of industrial development certificates and office development permits?

Mr. Shore: Those are somewhat over-simple solutions, but I believe that the IDC relaxation and the new intra-regional stress in IDC policies in favour of the inner areas will be a substantial help, as will be the increased powers of local authorities to assist industry. Of course I agree that the planning attitudes of local authorities have in the past been unhelpful in a number of instances, but I have seen plenty of evidence in many of the local authorities and local councils of a very significant change in their thinking.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what may turn out to be the most important decision that the Government have made. However, it is not with unalloyed joy that I look on the transfer of the urban programme to a completely non-black programme. The urban programme was designed as a black programme in the aftermath of the "rivers of blood" speech, and has never been fully used for that purpose. If my right hon. Friend is taking over the urban programme, why is he not taking over Section 11? In the choice of cities to be helped by the planned improvements, why is Bradford omitted when it is third in the list of census deprivation indicators and third in the number of New Commonwealth immigrants who live there?

Mr. Shore: The Section 11 programme under the 1966 Act remains unaffected

by what I have said and will continue to be used by the Home Office, which has its particular responsibilities in this field, linked with its responsibility for immigration policy. I do not think that we would all agree that the urban programme has in the past been a black programme. If it has been, it has been extremely ill-directed, because an extremely small part has gone to areas where black communities are strongly established.
My purpose is to deal, regardless of whether there are black or white populations, with aggregated problems of poverty and deprivation in our major urban centres. That is my purpose and policy. In some of the inner cities black communities are very small and in others they are very large. I believe that that is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Warren: Has not the Secretary of State dealt a death blow to overspill schemes for the Greater London Council? The effect on my own constituency of Hastings will be devastating as we have unemployment of more than 10 per cent. and we have spent millions of pounds and years of time trying to get together on the scheme on which the Government have now done a U-turn.

Mr. Shore: I should not like to predict what effects my policy announcement will have on certain towns in the South. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is already aware that some very radical rethinking has gone on in the GLC about its overspill programme, and what I have said does not necessarily relate to the decisions of the accommodating authorities themselves.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by Liverpool? Can he explain a little further the idea of a joint partnership or joint committee? Is he suggesting that the joint committee should have powers similar to those of new town authorities in order to cut through the very difficult bureaucratic planning arrangements that exist in order that speedy action can be taken? Can he give a further assurance that the Department of Industry will be very much involved in the creation of small nursery factories in the inner areas to help small businesses develop?

Mr. Shore: The joint committees to which I referred in a partnership context will, of course, draw up programmes covering the total needs of the area, bringing together central Government as well as local government input into the needs of the area. That will be the basis for assessing the direct grant for the programme worked out. Whether particular cities would wish to call in additional executive bodies or would wish themselves to invite the setting up of new kinds of organisations to deal with their problems is a question to which I certainly have not closed my mind. It is for them to put forward other proposals.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the Governments' initiative in relation to the East End of Glasgow. However, can the Secretary of State tell us when we can expect a further statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland about what is happening there? In Dalmarnock a tremendous contribution has been made by local community associations and community groups. Will the Secretary of State respond to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) and say what role he sees for community associations and community groups in the scheme that the Government have put forward?

Mr. Shore: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his question. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as he can.
I am glad that the hon. Member has brought me back to the important part that voluntary bodies and community groups can play in the inner areas. I believe that they have a very important part to play. Local people should be involved in planning and development in their own areas, but whatever we do in this direction, I do not wish to derogate from what I believe to be the prime responsibility of properly elected councillors.

Mr. Flannery: I appreciate the tremendous problem with which my right hon. Friend is grappling, but does he appreciate the intensity of feeling in areas such as Sheffield, which at less than 24 hours' notice sent to London the top delegation that it could muster to ask us to mention that Sheffield was likely not to be in the list? Could my right

hon. Friend explore more deeply the question of partnership to enable us to offer hope to areas that were heavily bombed in the war and the inner cities of which are in a dire position?

Mr. Shore: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I understand that any authority not included in my present list is bound to be worried and apprehensive, but I certainly do not rule out at all the possibility of talks and deputations to enable us to hear any further representations that they wish to make.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that on first hearing his statement is helpful, but will he also accept that the legislation should provide for removing some of the shackles on London? My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) has mentioned the IDCs and ODPs which deter people from bothering to apply even though they may know that they will get the certificates that they require. Will he also consider the demise of the Location of Offices Bureau?

Mr. Shore: I am glad to have a second opportunity to come back to the LOB. Certainly my view is that a change of direction is needed there, too. I think that its new emphasis must be far more on looking at what contribution it can make in office development to help the inner areas, including the inner areas of London. I shall have other things to say about the LOB at a later date.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To put hon. Members out of their agony I can tell them that I shall allow extra time beyond what I had in mind for this statement. It will help, however, if hon. Members are as concise as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner: How soon will my right hon. Friend consult those city councils that have been left out of the arrangements? I am thinking of Leicester. What test does my right hon. Friend intend to apply for eligibility, since Leicester, which is a recognised stress area with a high level of deprivation, 36 enumeration districts and a substantial ethnic minority, has been left out? It is very worried and apprehensive.

Mr. Shore: I understand my hon. and learned Friend's anxiety, but the fact that


he mentioned Leicester's great housing problem enables me to point out that where this is the major problem our housing stress policy and housing investment programmes will be of direct relevance and help to his city. Beyond that, clearly a lot depends on the mix and intensity of the problems from which particular major urban areas suffer. I am perfectly prepared to look at the mix of such problems and, indeed, I have done so already. I repeat, however, that the test will have to be very stringent and the selection will have to be small.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: However disappointing the details may be, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on at last having grasped this extremely difficult nettle? First, does he accept that his statement has implications for the expanding towns as well as for the new towns? Will he consider these implications and make a further statement later? Why did he leave out of his list of inner city problems two problems of special importance—first, crime and violence, especially among the young, and, secondly, the problems of immigration and race relations? Since both these problems intimately concern the police, will he ensure that the police as well as social workers are fully consulted in the development of his policy?

Mr. Shore: I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman said about the implications of my statement for the expanding towns. These will obviously have to be looked at in some detail. Crime and violence is broadly a problem for the country as a whole, although maybe it has an added sharpness in the inner city areas. However, in so far as it has, and in so far as it requires programmes to be deployed in a way that concentrates resources more in those areas, what I have been saying will be directly relevant. The Home Office will, of course, still be very much involved in general Government consideration of inner area policy.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I welcome the attempt by the Secretary of State to come to grips with the inner city problem, but is he aware that nowhere in Yorkshire is there at present a listed partnership city? Does he appreciate that every one of the indicators he mentioned in his statement, including a substantial immigrant community and a disproportionate number

of elderly, is fully applicable to Bradford? There will be great dismay at the exclusion of this city. Since my right hon. Friend says that the door to negotiations is not closed in terms of further cities seeking to join that very small list, how quickly will he act to negotiate and consider applications for joining that partnership list?

Mr. Shore: If it is any help to my hon. and learned Friend I can tell him to get going straight away and to start mobilising his case. I shall be more than willing to discuss it with him after the recess. Bradford has serious problems, but I have to determine whether they are of such a magnitude as to justify special partnership arrangements.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the Secretary of State please be rather more forthcoming on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker)? Is there to be a positive relaxation of IDC and ODP control in the cities in general and in London in particular? If so, by how much will it be relaxed? If it is not to be relaxed, how does the right hon. Gentleman hope to get the balanced industrial and commercial development that he requires?

Mr. Shore: I repeat, after the offers of assistance under regional policy have been made, we intend, through the administration of IDC policy, to put the inner areas as the next preference for firms seeking to establish themselves in the non-assisted areas. In the assisted areas where IDC policy is not used we have to use other means, and the Department of Industry will use some of the 1972 Act powers as well as the direct programmes of small factory building to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred earlier.

Mr. Jay: In view of the statement, most of which I welcome, will my right hon. Friend undertake to look favourably at certain problems for redevelopment schemes in the borough of Wands-worth, schemes of which I have given him particulars? Some of them are self-financing, but they require his approval and ODPs.

Mr. Shore: I always look carefully at propositions put to me by my right hon. Friend, and I shall look even more carefully at those he has mentioned.

Mr. Townsend: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the success of what he has announced today will depend largely on his ability to concentrate resources where the need is greatest, and that to do that he will have to resist the blandishments of hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he appreciate that if this Government and the next do not put sufficient resources into the programme, the cost to the country as a whole in terms of worsening race relations and crime will be very great?

Mr. Shore: I agree that the cost of failing to tackle the problems of our inner cities—and they are not coterminous with the problems of race, although they are often mingled together—the failure to deal with real decay and neglect could be very great to the whole country. That is why we must take action to solve those problems.

Mr. Roper: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement and his proposals will be particularly welcomed in Salford? Will he do what he can to deal with the outstanding planning appeals for the large rehousing programme for the city, because at present they are a serious impediment to dealing with the housing problems of the city's inner areas?

Mr. Shore: I shall look into that and do what I can to help.

Mr. Steen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government lopped £20 million off the programme to improve houses in Liverpool? Is he now proposing to return that £20 million by way of the £100 million that he will give to five cities, including Liverpool?

Mr. Shore: I hesitate to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said without looking carefully at the allocations we have made to Liverpool. However, Liverpool and the other local authorities will have the opportunity of borrowing up to 25 per cent., and I shall help them to increase what is available in improvement grants.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, welcome as the proposals are, they are likely to be too small and too slow in taking effect to overcome the massive problems of multiple deprivation? Will he accept that the most serious problem in these areas,

apart from housing, is the lack of skilled and semi-skilled jobs? Will he reconsider the reply which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) with a view to making the regional employment premium system more discriminating and applying it in areas such as inner London where there is an acute need for it?

Mr. Shore: I shall consider my hon. Friend's comments and suggestions. As for the size of the programme, may I make this quite clear? What I have been talking about is, as it were, a direct urban grant, which, as I have said, we intend to increase from the present levels to £125 million and to keep going from 1979–80. But, as my hon. Friend must be aware, because most of the expenditure in the cities is through the local authorities, an increase in the budgets and spending of local authorities is also directly relevant to the amount of resources available. I cannot quantify it, though I could give my hon. Friend some idea, but this has increased considerably precisely as a result of what we have done through the rate support grant needs element. Lastly, in terms of direct Government spending, what I have said excludes entirely the expenditure on housing which we make through central grants and determinations, which also have a special stress in favour of the hard-pressed urban areas.

Mr. Raison: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but is he aware that some of us are pretty sceptical about the likely ability of his joint committees to stimulate economic development? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans to tackle the problem of artificially high land values in the inner cities, and second, has he any plan to tackle the problem of land hoarding by public authorities, which has been made worse by the Community Land Act?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that last assertion but I agree that land hoarding presents a serious question in both the public and the private sector. We shall certainly make very plain to public sector holders of land which they do not need that we want its disposal at the earliest possible moment. As regards high land values, there is a problem because much of the land is simply not being offered. There does not appear to


be even a sensible market against which the values can be tested. If we can find ways of testing values—perhaps through what the hon. Gentleman almost suggested, by deliberate sales or carefully judged sales—in order to test and, if possible, lower market prices, that will be very much in our interest.

Mr. Newton: Is the Secretary of State aware of the difficulties which his announcement creates for those of us who are conscious of inner city problems but who represent areas where city population has already expanded but where the services have not kept pace? To many of my constituents it will look as though the Government have first moved them out and then moved the money back to where they came from. May we be assured at least that the right hon. Gentleman's policies—which are undoubtedly right in principle—will not be pursued to a degree which creates new deprivation in the areas to which city population has already moved?

Mr. Shore: I shall be concerned to see that that does not happen, but, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is a matter of getting the right balance between areas of new growth and the older areas where growth has been all too lacking.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call other hon. Members, but I do not wish it to be taken as a precedent. I have been overcome by the spirit of Easter. I hope, however, that hon. Members will be brief in their questions. There is another statement to follow.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the inner city area of Willesden, which I represent, there have been more than 60 factory closures in the past five years and the imbalance in the community through having thousands of skilled engineers out and lots of warehousemen in is creating problems? I noted what my right hon. Friend said about the partnership effort. Will he extend it beyond the boroughs concerned to bring in entrepreneurs and industry so that we may once again have a balanced mix of industry and jobs, as in the Park Royal estate?

Mr. Shore: In making my announcement about Lambeth and docklands, I

have not, as it were, closed the door to other areas of London. They will certainly be considered. As for bringing in industry, I am convinced that there must be far more active relationships established between local authorities and industry if we are to achieve the revival we want.

Mr. Madden: What plans has my right hon. Friend to issue a circular or other information to all local authorities regarding the policies which he has enunciated today? Second, will he confirm that for this Government tackling areas of deprivation in no way means that there are two classes of citizen, and they are pledged to tackle areas of deprivation wherever they are to be found?

Mr. Shore: Yes, of course we want to do that, but, as I understand it, it is very much part of our party's whole philosophy to treat the most urgent needs first—to assess needs and then try to meet them. I am trying to tackle the most urgent needs, but I do not rule out or in any way dismiss the claims of other parts of the country.

Mr. Faulds: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but on what criteria does he exclude Sandwell, part of which is represented by myself and part by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General? Sandwell suffers from exactly the same problems in similar concentration as do his chosen areas.

Mr. Shore: It is a matter of detailed analysis, and I shall have something further to say about that at the time of the White Paper. But I assure my hon. Friend that what we have tried to do is take account of virtually all the major indicators of need as well as the scale of the problem and other matters which are relevant. We shall try to satisfy my hon. Friend about our choice in due course.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it that the people of Salford will welcome some of his proposals, but is he aware of the disgruntlement on both sides of the House about the amount? Will he agree that if one took proper account of the construction industry and the low import element in building, it would be better to employ unemployed construction workers and provide more money? Will my right hon


Friend accept that in Salford there may well be an element of healthy scepticism about the way the Government will act when it is known that when proposals are made by Salford City Council they are bogged down in his Department for three to four months?

Mr. Shore: If I could launch a more far-reaching programme, I should be very pleased to do so, but the House must be aware that only two months ago we announced, to great applause, at least from the Opposition Benches, major reductions in public expenditure. Now, when I am able to announce an increase in the programmes, apparently with the approval of both sides, I hear—I am delighted to hear it—that perhaps I should consider doing even more. I have no doubt that all this will be noted not only by me but by my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Christopher Price: Outside the partnership areas, exactly whose responsibility will it be to stimulate the necessary employment? Is my right hon. Friend thinking of giving local authorities extra specific powers to take positive responsibility for employment in their areas?

Mr. Shore: Yes. The Government themselves cannot, as it were, take on the job for the whole country. It is therefore right and proper that local authorities should have somewhat greater powers than they have at present to do things to help their own urban economies.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed in East London, and especially in the London borough of Newham, where in Newham, South we have half the designated London docklands area? In the partnership scheme, will the partnership be with the existing Docklands Joint Committee? Will it be expanded in any way in the partnership? Further, is it correct that the savings in development in South-East England—developments which may not take place now in green-field sites—will be well in excess in cash terms of the share of the docklands money which my right hon. Friend has just announced?

Mr. Shore: I shall need notice of the second part of that question. As far as relationships with the Dockland Joint

Committee are concerned, obviously we want to talk about how the new partnership arrangements will fit in with that committee's own unique organisation. I am not proposing that we should seek to tear up a much negotiated and valuable organisation, but some modification of it may be needed.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister of State to make a statement on the EEC Council of Ministers' meeting I should tell the House that I allowed longer on that statement because of the direct constituency interests.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF MINISTERS' MEETINGS)

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): I will, with permission, make a statement on the two EEC Council of Ministers' meetings which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary chaired in Luxembourg yesterday. The first was a joint meeting of Foreign and Finance Ministers at which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was co-Chairman, and the second a Foreign Ministers' Council.
Before the Councils met, my right hon. Friend joined the Presidents of the Commission and of the Assembly in signing a Joint Declaration on Fundamental Rights. I am placing the text in the Library.
In the joint Council we looked at the broad priorities for Community expenditure in 1978. There was general agreement on the need to contain agricultural expenditure to concentrate more of the Community's resources on action related to urgent, social needs, especially unemployment, and to see that these resources are applied to the maximum effect. The joint Council also looked at a number of institutional questions including the proposed introduction of a new European unit of account in the Community Budget. These points will be pursued in detail and if necessary considered at a further Council.
In the Foreign Minister's Council we considered the line to be taken on a number of questions which will arise in the joint ACP-EEC Council to be held in Fiji on 13th and 14th April. We agreed


the Community's approach to the next stage of the CIEC talks: it was not possible to cover all the points which will arise in an on-going negotiation, but we have a sound basis which will be developed as the talks continue.
We discussed a number of fisheries questions, including third country negotiations. We agreed to a continuation of the interim measures to control third country fishing. In this context I pointed out the difficulties caused for Britain by Faroese restrictions. We decided that a renewed effort must be made to break the deadlock with Iceland; and it was agreed that a joint Commission-Presidency delegation should visit Reykjavik to discuss the whole question of fisheries arrangements between Iceland and Member States. While the proposal arose in the context of fish, our aim will be to set the fisheries problems in the wider context of the whole EEC-Iceland relationship. I hope to take part in these talks on behalf of the Presidency, along with Commissioner Gundelach representing the Commission.
The other major fisheries question, which led to a difficult discussion in the Council, was the unilateral action which the Irish Government are proposing to take to restrict fishing by vessels above a certain size in their waters. I resisted pressure to agree to the Commission's counter-proposal, which was one of the items discussed in this House on 28th March. This would have involved Community control of fishing over a large area of water within United Kingdom fishing limits, including the English Channel.
Under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, it was finally agreed that countries fishing in Irish waters would be asked to submit fishing plans which would be review by the Commission and the Irish Government with a view to meeting Irish conservation requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Discussions are continuing on the detailed application of this measure in order to finalise the arrangements whereby the Commission or member States will be able to apply it in practice.
My right hon. Friend chaired a successful ministerial negotiating session with the Greek delegation in the course of which the Presidency made clear on behalf of the Community that the Greek

negotiations will be handled on their own merits and that we shall aim to carry them forward as quickly as possible, while ensuring that the important issues are fully explored and negotiated.
Finally, the Council welcomed the Portuguese application for accession and invited the Commission to prepare its Opinion in accordance with the normal procedure but keeping in close touch with member Governments.

Mr. John Davies: I thank the Minister of State for his statement and for the timeliness of it. I have four questions.
Is the Minister aware that the House generally will agree with the conclusion about the need to contain agricultural expenditure, but will he explain how he reconciles that view with the extraordinary performance of his right hon. Friend at the Council of Agriculture Ministers a week earlier?
Secondly, he mentioned the introduction of a new European unit of account in the Community budget. Are we to understand that this differs from the Lomé unit of account which we understood would be introduced into the budget? Will he give an assurance that the introduction of such a unit will not substantially increase the United Kingdom's budgetary contribution?
I note that fisheries occupied an important part of the meeting. While we all hope to see a renewed effort on Iceland, and we are glad that the serious problem of Ireland has been overcome, we are generally apprehensive about the continued failure to reach a conclusion on the inshore fisheries question. This is causing our fishermen great anxiety.
Finally, the Minister's remarks about the potential accession of Greece and Portugal are welcome. The Community should, by every means available, encourage democratic developments in these countries.

Mr. Judd: I thank the right hon. Member for the constructive way in which he put his four points—with certain reservations about his first point. As for the containment of agricultural expenditure, we are particularly anxious that there should not be an undue buildup of surpluses at the expense of consumers. This is central to the whole of our negotiations which will be resumed


and, we hope, successfully concluded when our interests are taken account of, later this month.
On the unit of account, we can agree to a new unit being used for the 1978 budget, but we have to insist on following the interpretation proposed by the Commission of the effect of the change on Article 131 of the Treaty of Accession, which determines our contribution in 1978. We are determined that the arrangements that were made for our accession should not be set aside by the introduction of the new unit of account.
On inshore fisheries, we see this as a very high priority and we are committed to working for an effective common fisheries policy. But if this is to be successful, it will have to take account of the special needs of the British fishing industry and the disproportionately large contribution being made to Community needs from the traditional fishing grounds of the United Kingdom. It would be irresponsible to ignore this or to rush it.
I am glad that the right hon. Member made that statement about Greece and Portugal. We are very deeply committed to helping Greece in its efforts to join the Community.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the Government's resistance to a scheme of control within our fishing limits is very welcome? Will he comment on the report that agreement is about to be reached with Norway which will entitle the Norwegians to fish for herring up to 12 miles from British coasts? If this is true, does it not sell the pass over the 50-mile limit? If it is not true, will the Minister reaffirm that it is his intention to get a 50-mile national limit for this country?

Mr. Judd: I thank the right hon. Member for what he said. He also said it very forcefully in our debate the other night. We are glad to have the right hon. Member's support for the line that we are taking on fisheries policy.
As far as agreement with Norway is concerned, I know of no positive grounds for supporting the right hon. Member's interpretation. The negotiations have not been completed. They will be completed as quickly as possible. We are concerned with facilitating an effective Community

policy on fisheries as a whole. Of course our traditional fishing grounds and our approach to fishing must be taken into account in reaching a decision. That accounts for the temporary difficulties—and I hope that they are temporary—that we are experiencing at the moment.

Mr. Jay: Is it not unfortunate that in the midst of the discussions the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) should have made a public speech in Brussels attacking our Minister of Agriculture and British agricultural policy? Unless the right hon. Member wishes to deny the interpretation of his speech, it is obvious that this was just another example of members of the Conservative Party promoting the interests of all countries except their own.

Mr. Judd: Of course it is for the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) to comment in his own way and in his own time on that observation. If we are genuinely committed to making something meaningful of this Community, nothing in the end but positive results can come of facing up to the basic interests that are at stake, and any tendency to sweep under the carpet large and important national interests that are at stake in coming to common solutions might well prove counter-productive in the long-term fulfilment of the objectives that I know the right hon. Gentleman takes seriously.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I congratulate the Minister on the signing of the Declaration on Fundamental Rights. However, do the Government consider that that declaration goes far enough in relation to the laws of England and Scotland, which give a better guarantee of fundamental rights than the declaration?
On fishing, does not the Minister feel that there is grave danger in the delay in coming to a fixed, clear statement of where inshore fishermen stand? Is it not a fact that during this period of delay there is such disquiet that it is now affecting the number of boats at sea, investment and the number of people who are prepared to go into this industry? What has been decided for our inshore fishermen? Are we to be stuck with a 12-mile limit, while little Ireland is able to act in protection of her industry in contrast with what


seems to our fishermen to be a rather meek submission?

Mr. Judd: The Declaration on Fundamental Rights is, of course, a declaration of policy, and it has no legal force. It concerns the activities of the three Community institutions. Therefore, what the hon. Lady says about the law in the United Kingdom is obviously relevant.
The hon. Lady raised a point about the common fisheries policy. I re-emphasise what I have already said. What we are determined to do is to get a common fisheries policy that will work and be effective. We believe that if it is to work and be effective it will have to take into account the special needs of the British fishing industry and the especially large contribution that we are making. We believe that it is far more important to get this right than to rush it and perhaps find ourselves confronted with a non-workable solution.

Mr. John Davies: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I reassure the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that the reports of my speech that I have seen were exceedingly accurate. They were, indeed, accurate, because I consider, together with many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the Minister of Agriculture has severely damaged the British industry in the Community.

Mr. Judd: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make that observation unchallenged. The fact is that my right hon. Friend is pointing out in unequivocal terms to his Community colleagues certain fundamental British interests that are at stake.

Mr. Spearing: It is his duty to do so.

Mr. Judd: I am convinced that if we are to have a Community that is viable, nothing but good can come out of facing up to the fundamental issues that are at stake.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is enthusiasm—almost elation—among fishing Members that at long last the EEC, after at least 14 weeks, is to pick up the Icelandic nettle? Will he be leading this delegation? When he talks about bringing Iceland within the Community, does he mean that we shall be offering her special terms of entry with her products into Europe and in the event

of not getting a settlement that we shall deny her access to Europe? What is happening about quotas in Norwegian waters? In Hull we have no idea what the quotas will be. We are laying up ships—two on Monday and one yesterday. That means that 90 men from the ships, and twice that number on shore in ancillary activities, will be unemployed.

Mr. Judd: I made plain to my colleagues in Luxembourg yesterday what was at stake for the British fishing industry, specifically in the context of what we might be being asked to give up in Norwegian waters. We are determined to see, as I have said already, that whatever negotiated settlement comes out of this recognises just how much is at stake. At a time when the Community is talking a great deal about unemployment, we must take this matter very seriously, not only for fishermen themselves but for industries related to the trawlermen and what they are doing at sea.
On my hon. Friend's observations about Iceland, I say only this—and I hope that we shall not talk at this juncture in any sort of language that would seem to smack of threats and aggressive postures. We are going in a spirit of constructive friendliness to meet the Icelandic Government to talk about the real problems that exist, but we shall be firm, because not long ago Britain was getting 172,000 tons on average—largely cod—from those waters, and now we are getting nothing. There are other countries with interests at stake as well. We shall be talking firmly but in a friendly way, but we shall be talking about wider relationships between the Community and Iceland, as well as fishing.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: When the hon. Gentleman welcomes progress on the accession of both Greece and Portugal he carries the House with him. However, did he and the other Ministers discuss the danger that in well-meaning intentions to support the cause of democracy in those countries by giving them early membership we may be exposing their economies to strains which membership imposes and which they are not yet ready to bear? [Interruption.]

Mr. Judd: Without commenting on my hon. Friends' interjections, let me say that we realise that there are quite


serious transitional financial problems for the countries named. Those are things that the Community will be looking at. The Commission will be looking at them and reporting to the Council of Ministers as appropriate However, we are determined to do everything that we can as a Community to strengthen the cause of democracy within Europe as a whole

Mr. Biffen: Has the Council of Ministers considered a request that the Commission should be enabled to raise funds on the international money market? If so, what view was offered by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Judd: Ideas on the possibility of financing part of the Community budget from borrowing, for example, when the present 1 per cent. VAT rate limit is reached, and possibly within the context of an expanded budget, are still at a very early stage. It is, therefore, premature to form a view until the implications have been thoroughly examined.

Mr. Roper: Will my hon. Friend say something more about the Council's discussion in preparation for the CIEC meeting and, in particular, whether, in view of the impasse that appears to have occurred in UNCTAD about a common commodity fund, the Community has made any further progress on this matter?

Mr. Judd: A common fund to facilitate a programme of commodity agreements which may come out of UNCTAD circles is primarily a matter for UNCTAD, but we expect that there will be discusison within the context of the CIEC on this matter. The Community has taken a positive and constructive line. If my hon. Friend reflects on what actually happened in Geneva as distinct from what may have been reported in some quarters, he will appreciate that the Community took a very positive position, particularly compared with what happened in Nairobi a year ago.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to emphasise again the very special concern in Scotland, particularly North-East Scotland, over what has been reported about what may be agreed with Norway. To the extent that Scottish fishermen may not be compensated for what we may

have to give up in relation to fishing off Norway, should we not be aligning ourselves with the Irish Government in the attitude that they are taking if we are to achieve proper control of a band of up to about 50 miles?

Mr. Judd: In the best possible Communautaire spirit, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I specifically drew my colleagues' attention in Luxembourg yesterday to the fact that we were not discussing in a political vacuum, and I drew their attention to the strength of feeling that was expressed in the debate in the House a few days previously. We shall in no sense overlook the points that the hon. Gentleman has very validly made.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Forman—last question.

Mr. Forman: On the basis of his recent experience at EEC meetings, does the Minister believe that there is now a realistic chance in the European Community for switching the balance within the CAP slightly more away from price support and more towards structural support? Secondly, is there any chance of persuading our Community partners to view their agricultural problems, notably in France and Italy, more in perspective of the regional and social problems that they are, and therefore to carry that burden on the regional and social funds and not on the food prices paid by British housewives?

Mr. Judd: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this was much in the mind of Ministers yesterday. Among the points emphasised were the need to get the balance of expenditure right not only within agriculture but between agriculture and the rest, and that there are important social, economic and industrial priorities that need higher consideration than they have received in the past.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That this House do meet to-morrow at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock and that at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Tinn.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Tuesday 19th April.—[Mr. Foot.]

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: There are two reasons why the House should not pass this motion until certain statements have been made by the Government.
First, I should like to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the situation of the British film industry, which is of national importance. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the strange saga that has been going on for a long time. It was as long ago as 22nd July 1976 that the Secretary of State announced a decision to set up a committee to carry forward the work of the Terry working party. He announced then that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) had agreed to chair the committee, which would be known as the Interim Action Committee. The statement was followed by an exchange of letters between the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State and it was then said, in July 1976, that the members of the committee were expected to be appointed soon. So far so good.
Then there was silence. I am sure that I cannot be alone in having received representations from constituents who are worried that nothing is happening. So I started to ask questions and I was told:
My right hon. Friend hopes to announce the names of the members of the committee before the end of this month."—[Official Report, 18th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 259.]
That was in January 1977, although the committee had been set up in July 1976. I was patient, but on the 4th February I again asked when the rest of the names would be announced, and I was told:
My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce these names shortly."—[Official Report, 4th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 477.]
So the announcement would no longer be made at the end of the month but "shortly"—and that was virtually what was said in July, six months earlier. During the following week, on 11th February, I was told that the right hon. Member for Huyton would chair the Interim Action Committee and I was told again that the names of the other

members of the committee would be announced "as soon as possible". I am sure that the Leader of the House will admit that saying "as soon as possible"—when the original statement was made in July 1976 and had been supplemented by an Answer in January saying that the names would be announced at the end of that month—is not good enough.
We are now in April, and the names still have not been announced. I want to ask, and the House needs to know before agreeing to the motion, how many persons have been approached to join the committee and why they have declined. I ask whether it is now fair to expect the right hon. Member for Huyton to continue chairing this committee—which has not yet made up all its membership and which has not met once—when he has, at the request of the Government, undertaken the chairmanship of what we have been told is a major committee looking into the future of the City. We need to know, before agreeing to the motion, whether the Government feel that the film industry is so unimportant that the names cannot be announced nine months after we were originally told that the committee would be set up. That is the first of the points about which I am disturbed, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to assure us in his reply to this brief debate when the names will be announced and how many people have been invited to sit on the committee.
The second matter is one of local interest but with national implications. I am glad that the Leader of the House is with us now because both he and I are avid readers of the Hampstead and Highgate Express which, I believe we would agree, is probably the best local paper in London. The Leader of the House, together with many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, are my constituents—although they might not vote for me—and are purchasers of the Hampstead and Highgate Express.
No doubt the Leader of the House will know—apart from reading that paper—of the successful establishment of the Fairhazel Tenants Co-operative which bought a fairly large estate from one of the old Hampstead estates—the Maryon Wilson Estate—a year or so ago. I was glad to be able to assist in that and I was also glad that the Department of


the Environment gave a major amount of help to enable that co-operative to establish itself.
The co-operative has to consider the fixing of rents for those of its members who do not necessarily wish to purchase the properties in which they live. The co-operative wishes to go along—indeed it must—with the system of fair rents, and for that purpose it is important, as I am sure the Leader of the House would agree, to keep a balance between the landlord and tenant, whether the landlord is a large one or a co-operative and whatever type the tenant may be.
Of assistance to tenants in urban areas—where the problems are different from those in the rest of the country—is the need to establish the size of the flat in question. Therefore, the maximum amount of information needs to be made available on the rent register so that tenants and landlords can see clear comparisons.
In the rent register that is kept by the rent officer for Camden the floor areas used to be entered, and that was of great assistance to landlords and tenants. That information was collected until about 1975 when the Camden rent officer took it upon himself to decide that the practice of noting floor areas in the register was dubious. He stopped something that had been in existence for several years, that was of great value and that had been commenced by his predecessor because the London Rent Assessment Panel had asked for a copy of every registration together with a note of the floor areas. When the panel stopped collecting the copies this rent officer took it upon himself to cease noting the floor areas. This is causing great unhappiness in my constituency and elsewhere in Camden.
The rent officer takes the view that the rent register is a legal document and that it should contain only those items that are required by law to be entered therein. That is his view in April 1977. But in 1972 his predecessor took a different view on the instructions of the London Rent Assessment Panel.
In order to quiet the anxiety of my constituents we need to know—[Interruption.] the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is making comments from a seated position. I was going to give way but he does not seem to want to intervene.

Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will give way to me instead. I am most grateful to him for doing so.
Surely the rent officer is not under the instructions of the local authority in such matters as complying with his duty to register certain facts, and he is not under instruction from the rent panel of London or anybody else. He must obey a set of instructions and nothing else—even if his predecessor has made a mistake in his interpretation of law.

Mr. Finsberg: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was here when I started. I do not think that he was. I was talking of the need for some consistency and explaining why we need to hear from the Government what can be done to clarify the situation. One rent officer, at the request of the London Rent Assessment Panel, decided that floor areas should be noted and there was no argument or query at that time.
I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that this is a House of Commons matter of importance to my constituents and not a question of party polemics in which we often indulge in the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to look at this matter and to realise that it is causing anxiety among tenants. I speak only for Camden because I have received representations only from Camden, but, although other rent officers in London still note the floor areas on their registers, the practice may have ceased in some districts and other tenants may be worried.
I hope that the Secretary of State will send a circular to rent officers explaining that the original practice was desirable and that it is for the Minister or the courts—and not a rent officer—to change the views of a previous rent officer. Clarification is needed on this point.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: I rarely intervene in debates on the Adjournment because, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House, I have heard hundreds of impassioned speeches about why we should not go away so quickly, should come back earlier or should not go away at all. Those


are not my aims because I am as ready as most other hon. Members for a rest at this time of the year.
I wish to draw the attention of the Government and the House to a problem which Parliament has considered before and which has now reached a stage which means that there will be a grim and unhappy Eastertide for many of my constituents because of the continuing industrial dispute at Grunwick Film Processing Laboratories.
The dispute is now in its 34th week, and I pay tribute to the courage and steadfastness of the workers who have stood firm—especially as they are mainly Gujurati immigrants with a different background to that of an industrial society, who came to this country seeking a welcome and found instead deplorable working conditions.
I accuse the management of Grunwick of being intransigent to a degree rarely witnessed in the modem industrial world and of being totally obstructive to the work of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service with which they are still refusing to co-operate, even though its report has now been published. This has meant a delay from the time when, with tongue in cheek, they agreed last November to accept arbitration to 10th March when, because of delaying tactics, the report under Section 12 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 was only finally published.
It is this delay that I am seeking to get Parliament to influence, because it means that arbitration cannot be forced into action until 24th May, and that is far too long a time for the wives and children of my constituents to remain suffering. It means that the dispute will have lasted 14 months and there is still no sign of a settlement despite what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
I find the conduct of the managing director reprehensible to a degree bordering on fanaticism, and it is to be regretted that some hon. Members opposite joined the disruptive National Association for Freedom in condoning his behaviour and even giving financial and legal support to extract the last lawyers' quibble in an attempt to subvert the will of Parliament as contained in Acts.
I quote from a report signed by three responsible organisations—the Greater

London Association of Trades Councils, the No. 8 District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the South-East Regional Council of the Trades Union Congress. The report, dated 4th April this year, says:
Since the recommendation was issued on the 9th March the company has sought to physically intimidate the strikers in order to smash the strike. The company knows that in two months time it would face a decision by the Central Arbitration Committee on Wages and Conditions for its workers if it has not smashed the strike by them. There have been seven specific acts of physical violence on the strikers since the 9th March. This includes one of the strikers being beaten up by the Managing Director of Grunwick, and another striker being throttled to the stage where he lost consciousness. Whilst picketing chemists shops who distribute Bonuspool and Trucolor films for Grunwick the strikers had buckets of water thrown over them, been physically assaulted, and although complaints have been made to the police no action has been taken against the persons carrying out these assaults.
The laboratories are in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson), who is the Minister for Housing and Construction. We have seen the local chief superintendent of police and have been assured that the police will be taking action and will do their best to be fair to the pickets and to maintain law and order if the actions of the management continues in these rather difficult circumstances.
When Mr. Speaker gave his permission under Standing Order No. 9 for the House to debate this subject on 4th November, the Opposition benches were in full cry about the need to maintain law and order. What efforts are now being made to secure the following up of the law contained in the Employment Protection Act? What influence is being exerted by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who initiated that debate?
I challenge the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to use their influence on Grunwick to get the company to comply with the ACAS report and to declare themselves as humane and compassionate hon. Members should in condemning the slave-like way in which workers are treated in this particular company. The Grunwick working conditions are a disgrace to the country and would not be tolerated in any other industry in my constituency or indeed in any other part of the United Kingdom.
The matter is urgent and fraught with potential danger because the whole of the trade union movement rightly intends to see that my constituents get fair play. If Grunwick persist conflict may escalate. I pay tribute to Mr. Len Murray of the TUC, Mr. Tom Jackson and other responsible trade union leaders who came to my constituency on Sunday 12th December to pledge their support and to give encouragement to workers seeking elementary rights.
From 12th April—when the House will be in recess—miners, engineers, postal workers and every section of the trade union movement will be converging on Willesden and manning a 24-hour-a-day picket until the management of Grunwick can bring themselves to come into the twentieth century, get round a table and deal with these matters as they should be dealt with between responsible managements and workers and to implement the ACAS report.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend, the Minister responsible for Sport, for delaying his debate. I know that were he permitted to speak, as a leading member of the trade union concerned, APEX, he could put this case more cogently and effectively than I can. But if my eleventh-hour appeal is wasted and the ACAS report is not accepted, conflict will follow and Mr. Ward and his fellow directors will stand condemned in the eyes of all reasonable and fair-minded people, including hon. Members in all parts of the House.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I wish to raise a matter concerning unemployment, the introduction of licences to work in a certain occupation and the Government's failure to issue sufficient licences. It is a further example of the attack that the Government have been making on the self-employed and the small business man.
It is wrong for the House to go on holiday without the Government giving further time for discussion and without a Treasury Minister giving us an explanation of what steps are being taken to put right the very unfair situation in which the Government have placed 35,000 people in the building industry and their employees.
The Government's alleged purpose in the introduction of this legislation was to prevent tax evasion, in which we all support them. The document issued by the Inland Revenue entitled "Construction Industry Tax Deduction Scheme" says clearly that the purpose of the certificate relates solely to tax matters. If that were so, none of us would have any cause for complaint. Unfortunately, that is not the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who raised this matter in Questions on a number of occasions, and I went to the Treasury with a deputation. We were heard sympathetically by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman appeared very understanding and sympathetic, but he has done nothing. We should not allow him to go on holiday, any more than we should go, without seeking to have this injustice put right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has also had experience of constituents who have been unfairly denied the right to work as building sub-contractors because they have been denied 714 certificates. The refusal in the case of one of his constituents was on the ground that he had grown a moustache. Frivolous though it may sound, that was, in the eyes of the Treasury, an adequate reason for denying the right to work to that particular sub-contractor.
The conditions under which people have been refused the right to work include, among others, that they must have been in continuous employment for the previous three years. I am astonished that a Labour Government should introduce legislation to penalise people for being unemployed. But that is what they are doing. If a man has not been in continuous contract work for the last three years, he is ineligible for and is denied a 714 certificate.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is not another essential prerequisite for getting the certificate that a man must have been in good health and that, if he is away from work through sickness, that may deny him the right to a 714 certificate?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, it goes further than that. I know of a sub-contractor in the building industry who had a


broken hand and therefore obviously could not carry on his work. For that reason his work was interrupted and he was ineligible for a certificate.
Another sub-contractor, who went to visit his dying mother in Scotland and was away for some time, thereby breaking his continuous service, was refused a certificate.
Another example of people being refused the right to work concerns those who have worked on the Continent. We are in the Common Market. There are supposed to be arrangements which allow people to move from one place to another within the Common Market. It is unfair to allow them to do that if they are to be denied the right to work when they come back.
The Smaller Business Bureau has brought to my attention the case of a plasterer who has been denied a 714 certificate because he does not have £250,000 worth of insurance cover. I hope that the Leader of the House will take account of this interesting case. The Smaller Business Bureau found that if this man did not have £250,000 worth of insurance cover, he could not have a 714 certificate and therefore could not, in effect, work. What does a plasterer have? He has a bucket, some plaster, a board for mixing it on and a plastering trowel. It is ludicrous to insist that he should have £250,000 worth of insurance cover. It is also grossly unfair that the Government should behave in this way.
There is also the question of adequate premises. Who is fairly to judge that? It is certainly not a tax consideration which was alleged to be the reason for introducing this measure.
There is no right of appeal against the tax. It may be no fault of the man concerned. One of my constituents who lives near Newbury in North Hampshire has a problem because there has been a delay on the part of a Government Department in returning correspondence. Apparently there was so long a delay in providing answers to further questions that the matter has been dragging on for over a year.
In other cases the accountants concerned may be ill. In one case brought to my attention by the Smaller Business Bureau and the 714 Campaign the man's wife looked after the books. It is not

unusual in a small business for the wife to do the accounts. In this particular case, the wife became ill and eventually died. As a result, the records were incomplete and in arrears. There is no appeal against the refusal of the right to work in that situation. I believe that we should not go on holiday until the Government announce that they will do something about this matter.
On 16th March the Treasury issued a circular, of which I have a copy,
Sub-Contractors in the Construction Industry. Late applications for tax certificates.
It states: "It appears"—as if it were some strange thing coming out of the ground of which it had not heard before—
that some contractors and local authorities have not received evidence of certificates from their sub-contractors".
I understand that "some" amounts to 12,000. That is not a bad "some" appearing out of the ground as an extraordinary and unexpected animal.
Apart from that, there have been 25,000 refusals of certificates—many without reason, many without right of appeal—and about 35,000 referred back. These are serious matters affecting the livelihoods of a surprisingly large number of citizens who are entitled to look to this House to right the ill from which they have been suffering.
In response to a recent Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, the Treasury gave an indication—it did not say it, but there was the implication—that it would allow re-applications from some of those who had had certificates refused without right of appeal. That is an interesting development which we should pursue. Furthermore, I believe that a Treasury Minister should come to the House and assure us—not imply, but positively assure us—that re-applications will be considered and that reasons will be given if 714 certificates are refused.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: One of the most shocking things is that, when I have written to the Treasury or raised the matter on an Adjournment debate, there have been second thoughts and certificates have in the end been granted. It is disgraceful, but true, that the best way to get a 714 certificate is to write to one's Member of Parliament. I hope that my hon. Friend


will spread that message widely. It may be that some of the 25,000 who have been refused certificates will then write to us as apparently the only way of getting certificates. It is an abuse of the privilege of the House that that should be so, but it appears to be the case.

Mr. Mitchell: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having made that point.
If a man does not have a certificate, 35 per cent. of his contract price is stopped. He cannot pay 100 per cent. wages to his employees with only 65 per cent. of his contract price coming through and having to wait about 14 months before it is paid. That is an impossible situation. The cash flow position will drive many people out of business in two or three months, if not less. In a system which involves a licence to work, as this does, there is a duty upon the House to insist that Treasury Ministers should justify the refusal of 714 certificates.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: It is abundantly clear that, as always on these occasions, most hon. Members have already gone off on holiday before reaching a decision on the motion one way or the other.
I am not sure whether the points which I wish to raise or the representations which I wish to make should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But they clearly are matters for him, because they involve legislation, but legislation which is subject to the new consultative process which has been set up with the Liberal Party. The subject with which I am concerned was specifically mentioned in the Prime Minister's statement and written agreement with the Liberal Party.
The point that I wish to raise concerns the direct labour Bill. We have not seen the Bill, and I do not want the House to go into recess until we do see it. The situation is that 400 citizens in Birmingham are to get the chop because of this delay. Last Thursday afternoon in Birmingham it was announced by the Tory leadership of the city council that the construction department was to be closed. This means that 400 skilled craftsmen will be sent up the road, not straight away,

but at the end of the contracts. I want the House not to adjourn, so that we can see the Bill and make representations on it. Because of the machinations of the Government and the Liberal Party we have no idea what will be in the Bill, as distinct from what was in the manifesto.
The construction department that will be affected by the Bill was set up only three years ago. Because builders in and around Birmingham refused to tender for city contracts this department was set up by the city itself. The position is that 90 per cent. of the employees, including managerial staffs, came from the private sector of the building industry, and last week they warned Councillor Bosworth what would happen. They know that if the department disappears the old system of ring prices will come into operation again. The builders will ring one another to decide the price at which to tender, and by so doing they will screw the city's ratepayers.
I want to ensure that representations can be made on the Bill so that when a department has been set up it cannot be closed willy-nilly. This department has not cost the Birmingham ratepayers a penny piece. Last year—its first full year of operation—it made a profit of £170,000. That is not my figure, but that given by the city treasurer in accordance with the procedures laid down for checking on direct building departments.
One must bear in mind all the apprentices who have been taken on by the department. A similar procedure has been followed by many cities, but Birmingham leads in this matter. The building industry is notorious for not training its own skilled labour. The apprentices who have been taken on will not be able to complete their apprenticeships. The department contracted to hire £150,000 worth of machinery on a long lease. This sum will be on the debit side when the accounts are wound up, with the result that it will be a burden on the ratepayers.
What is more, almost a week after the closure announcement Birmingham City Corporation has still not informed the trade unions involved. It has not so much as written a letter or made a phone call to the trade unions telling them what is to happen. All the legislation that has been put through the House while I have


been a Member of it, and all the legislation put through by my right hon. Friend when he was in his other post, does not mean a thing to Birmingham City Council. There has not been so much as a phone call in connection with the 90-day period that is required under the Employment Protection Act. There have been no discussions with NALGO or UCATT.
The city council has been warned that the situation will arise that the private builders will get their little fingers into what they see as the public sector pie. These are the people represented by Conservative Members who bemoan the expenditure of public money, but when it comes to firms in their constituencies being affected by public expenditure cuts they are the first to complain. The quid pro quo is that when the direct building department is closed there will be more work for the private sector. I hear someone on the Conservative Benches saying "Hear, hear". That confirms what I am saying. It means that there will be an opportunity for those who wish to do so to persist with the lump and to abuse the tax laws.
We heard a speech a little earlier from the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell). All that Conservative Members are on about is tax evasion, just as they were on 9th February when the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had a debate on his motion. That is what they are on about. They are on about tax exemption for the lump in the building industry. Large cities cannot get good service from private building contractors, and they are therefore forced to do the building themselves. They are not prepared to see their ratepayers screwed because of the fiddling of prices. All that will be at stake if we do not see the appearance of the direct labour Bill.
I do not think that we ought to go into recess until my right hon. Friend has talked to the Leader of the Liberal Party, put to him the situation that has arisen in Birmingham, and got agreement that the Bill will contain provisions to ensure that direct labour departments that are in operation and viable are not closed. I do not want the departments to be a burden on the ratepayer. They must operate on good commercial principles, just as the NEB does, so that the

public sector has a yardstick by which to measure private sector contracts. The department in Birmingham has gone on to the open market in the past three years and won contracts, which is much to its credit. The proposed closure is deplorable.
Many of my constituents who are employed by the department are in touch with me, and they are afraid that they will lose their jobs. A Mr. Price wrote to say that this department is in no way spongeing on the ratepayer, and he added:
As a ratepayer, I should myself recommend the closing of the department if that were so".
The department does not wish to sponge on the ratepayers, but the men concerned know, because they have come from the private sector, that if the department is closed the ratepayers will be screwed again by the private sector of the building industry.
It is not good enough to let this go by the by. Government intervention is necessary. They should bring the Bill forward urgently, perhaps more urgently than was originally contemplated, so that those departments that are in operation are not allowed to be run down by vindictive, doctrinaire Tory councillors. The department will be kept in being for the next 18 months while contracts are run down. It will be there with its administrative overheads, its apprentices and its capital equipment, but as from last Thursday no tenders will be possible for any contracts anywhere in the city, be it a city contract or a private one.
We want measures to prevent local dictators in Tory town halls from making this sort of decision. If they want to chop the department they should have the courage to do so straight away. They said in their election manifesto that there would be no redundancies, and that nobody's job would be at stake, but even today they cannot tell the 400 workers in that department what is to happen to them. They have not told the trade unions what is to happen. They have not informed Members of Parliament who represent the city what is to happen. I know that if my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) gets back in time he will seek to speak on this matter.
My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to the problem that I wished to raise, and I hope that the private office of the Liberal Party will read today's Hansard and take note of what has been said, because there are no Liberal Members here today. They want their 12 days rest and recuperation. They will need it for the next term, which will be tougher than have the past few weeks.
I think that my right hon. Friend owes it to the House, to the citizens of Birmingham, to the leadership of this former vigorous Labour-controlled city that set up the department to say that the ratepayers will not be taken for a ride. He owes the House a statement that when the Bill comes forward it will include provisions that will prevent the rundown of the department in the way that the Tories in Birmingham are planning.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I owe the House, and particularly the Leader of the House, an apology, in that I have to be away for a short period to do a radio broadcast. I hope that I shall be back in time to hear the right hon. Gentleman wind up the debate, when I have no doubt that he will accommodate the modest requests that I propose to make.
My requests flow, in a sense, from the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), but if there is to be a Division on this motion I shall vote in favour of the Adjournment. I shall do so particularly out of regard for the Leader of the House. He needs a rest. He is not himself. One had only to witness his extraordinary and obdurate behaviour this afternoon in respect of the proposed two-day debate on elections to the Strasbourg Assembly to realise that this long-established and hallowed lover of Parliament and libertarian had become an almost remorseless bureaucrat.
This brings me to the very centre of my point. The arrangements concluded between the Government and the Liberal Party are not altogether appropriate to the House. This is where I agree with the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I believe that the way in which this House is permitted to question the proceedings of the joint consultative committee is wholly unsatisfactory. As far as I can gather,

the framework is established in an Answer given on 28th March by the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls). The right hon. Gentleman said this:
As these matters"—
these were queries about the working of the arrangement between the Government and the Liberal Party—
concern inter-party relations, I do not intend to report on them to the House."—[Official Report, 28th March 1977; Vol. 929, c. 34.]
On 29th March the Prime Minister said this:
I do not propose to assume ministerial responsibility for these inter-party arrangements."—[Official Report, 29th March 1977; Vol. 929, c. 249.]
This is wholly unsatisfactory, exactly as was underlined by the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr. I have no desire to pull aside the curtain and be a sort of political Peeping Tom to look in on these arrangements because, as far as I can see, Liberal Members, apart from being absentee landlords in the best Anglo-Irish ascendancy tradition, are also the political streakers of our time and they run hither and thither in such a fashion as to make any attitudes of a Peeping Tom wholly redundant.
However, the proprieties of the House should be served. I believe that the proprieties of the House require that we should know what are the formal arrangements being made and what are the Government's reactions to those formal representations.
I will take just two modest incidents. The first concerns the fate of Mr. Philip Agee and Mr. Mark Hosenball. I had a letter from the Oswestry Division Liberal Association saying:
We the Executive Committee of the Oswestry Division Liberal Association deplore the methods being used to secure the deportation of Philip Agee and Mark Hosenball.
There was a further comment.
I forwarded the letter to the Home Office, which replied at length, but there was no doubt that it was, broadly speaking, a lemon-shaped answer, which I then sent to the Oswestry Division Liberal Association saying:
I note that Mr. Peter Hain hopes that the present understanding between the Parliamentary Liberal Party and the Government might lead to a reconsideration by the Home Office


of their policy towards Mr. Hosenball and Mr. Agee. If it is your wish that I should raise the matter further with the Home Office in the light of Mr. Hain's comments, perhaps you will kindly let me know.
I have not yet had a reply from the Oswestry Division Liberal Association about that issue of civil liberties.
I dare say that if the Leader of the House were sitting below the Gangway he would be second to none in his championing of civil liberties. On an issue of this significance the House is entitled to know, and it is entitled to have the machinery which will enable it to know, what are the representations from the Liberal Party.
I take another point, and I make it as topical as I can. I draw it—I am delighted to have to say it in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills)—from the "Farming Today" programme of this morning. Just awake, I was suddenly riveted by the news that the Liberal Party had been talking to the Devon branch of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Peter Mills: Ha, ha.

Mr. Biffen: I had hoped that the members of the Liberal Party would have been in their place this afternoon to follow up the commitment which they gave to the Devon branch of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Peter Mills: I shall do that.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend says that he intends to do that. So negligent are Liberal Members of the opportunities of Parliament that they have deserted their place.
I understand from the radio that the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) are committed to a policy of securing a devaluation of the green pound by a full 5 per cent. This is a most extraordinary commitment. If that is what is being proffered by their spokesmen on consumer and prices affairs, these are all legitimate areas where Parliament must know what are the pressures, and what are the influences. Our information must not be from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. I choose him as the man most likely to go on the radio or to write in the newspapers

or in some way or other to give his version of what has proceeded in the joint consultative committee.
I have never been a great devotee of open government as advocated by the Secretary of State for Energy, but I have certainly been a devotee of the principle that this House should maintain as far as possible control over its procedures in a way which makes the Executive answerable to the House.
I have never enjoyed the situation in which deals were done with the CBI or with the TUC or any other extra-parliamentary corporate interest which diminished the authority of the Floor of the House. To an even greater extent do I deplore arrangements concluded within the House which are not open to the scrutiny and the investigation which I believe will be increasingly desired in all quarters of the House. For when the tail of 13 such indifferent joints as this wags the dog, Parliament has every right to be fully informed.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I shall certainly answer the points the hon. Gentleman has raised when I reply at the end of the debate. It would greatly help the House if the hon. Gentleman would tell us about his own attitude to devaluation of the green pound and whether his attitude was shared by his Front Bench when he was still on it.

Mr. Biffen: I shall be very happy to do so when the parliamentary occasion arises. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has ever been left in any doubts about my views on the workings of the common agricultural policy.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: That was all jolly good stuff, but I am afraid that I must change the subject to something more serious.
There is in my constituency a hospital—St. Mark's—which has a national, and indeed an international, reputation as a centre of excellence and experience in the treatment of bowel cancer and other diseases and faults of the bowel. It is a small hospital with a long history and it is only in recent decades that it has particularly specialised in this field. It is known


to specialists throughout the world and it is the place to which many people are sent from all over the world on reference from other hospitals—even teaching hospitals—in this sector of medicine.
Although St. Mark's is only a small hospital of about 90 beds, it was instructed last November by the district medical team to close 40 of those 90 beds at five weeks' notice. That decision was changed later and only one ward of 14 beds was closed. However, that is a very large part of the facilities of a hospital as small as St. Mark's.
I took the line at that time, and made my position very clear to the Minister, who is ultimately legally responsible, because he can give instructions to all health authorities, that I was not prepared to have any hospital in my constituency treated in that manner. It may be necessary for wards to be closed. Obviously it often is necessary. We cannot freeze the hospital structure as it is at any one time. However, It can never be justified in the case of any hospital, and certainly not in the the case of a cancer research hospital, for it to be instructed at five weeks' notice to close a ward, with at that time the strong likelihood that the ward would be reopened on 1st April this year, the closure having resulted in the saving of only £18,000. There was before that fiat of last November no consultation with the staff of the hospital as to the means by which savings could be achieved in other ways than by the closing of the beds. I stress that it is to the manner of the decision and not necessarily to the fact of the decision that I take exception.
Arrangements were made for the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, to visit the hospital in February, I think, and every encouragement was then given to believe that the ward could be reopened on 1st April on thereabouts—that is, when the money for the new year started to become available. That is the daft way in which we run things.
A recent letter to the hospital has stated that although the district medical team intends that the ward should be reopened in the course of this financial year, no date can be given for the reopening, because it will depend on a number of factors, which means that we have no

idea when the ward will be opened. This means that the waiting list, particularly for women patients, is severely affected.
I gave the warning last December that this was not to happen to a hospital in my area—that this sort of last minute ordering about of medical staff as to what they would be able to do must not be repeated. Despite that, and despite the visit by the Minister, in effect the same thing has happened again, with an order that the ward will not be reopened until some vague time in the future. No case for and against, so that we could "second guess" the judgment, if that is the word, of the health authorities, was put up to the Minister, and none was put to me. Such case as has now been given to me at my request—it was not volunteered to me—is perfunctory to say the least.
Let me illustrate the confusion by reference to the supposed costs of the closure. In January, the closure of the ward was said in a Parliamentary Answer formally in Hansard to be likely to save £18,000 for the three months. However, in the latest letter from the Minister—the facts in which are based upon information supplied to him, presumably, by the health authorities—the figure given is £50,000 to £60,000. Within 48 hours of my inquiries being made, that figure had been chopped down to £10,000. This is no way to run anything, far less a hospital, and far less one dealing with cancer. As far as I am concerned, that ward will be reopened immediately.
I would not normally seek by parliamentary judo to substitute my judgment for the judgment of the health authorities—all three tiers of them, plus the Ministry—which Parliament itself has set up to take these decisions. But where the manner in which the decisions have been taken is so clearly at fault, after a clear and very strongly worded warning has been given to the Minister, and known to the health authorities, I am prepared to use parliamentary judo.
These, therefore, will be the arrangements. As the Lord President probably noticed, yesterday afternoon I used two minutes of the House's time by not letting the motion to refer a Statutory Instrument go through without the two minutes which even one Member can require to be spent on that matter. I could, of course, have done the same sort


of thing on Monday night on all the Budget resolutions, but, being a very understanding person, I did not do that, because I thought that it would probably harm my cause more than it would help it.
There are, however, many occasions, as the Lord President knows better than anybody, in parliamentary procedure when even one Member can wreak havoc. In that connection he will recall, as I always recall, the words of Horatius when pointing across the bridge from Rome to the narrow path. He said, as might be said about the parliamentary procedure, that
In yon straight path a thousand might yet be held by three.
About 20 or 30 Members of this House have received already from their constituents letters protesting about what has happened at St. Mark's. Therefore I invite the Lord President to think what might happen if 20 or 30 Members were trying to hold the narrow way.
This, therefore, is the arrangement. So far as I personally am concerned, if it is announced or communicated to me—I need not go public on it—that the ward will be reopened during April, I shall lift my sanctions as soon as I am so told. If the ward is to be reopened only in May, I shall lift my sanctions when it is reopened. If it is reopened only in June, I shall lift my sanctions one week after the ward is reopened. If it is in July, it will be two weeks after the ward is reopened. If it is in August, it will be three weeks, and so on, and such sanctions as cannot be applied before the recess will be carried forward to the period after the recess.
I stress again that I would not normally indulge in this kind of thing in order to substitute a judgment for those who are appointed to take that judgment, but it is very clear from the history of this case that the judgment has not been made against a proper assessment of the facts and with proper regard to the fact that the Minister had taken an interest in this case. The health authority has put two fingers up to him, as it has to me, and that is not to be done with impunity.
Let me close by quoting the deathless words of the district administrator of the health authority concerned. Standing two

feet away from the responsible Minister, he said:
St. Mark's must take its share of the misery.
I am glad to say that the Minister informed the district administrator that that was not the principle on which a hospital service should be run. So far as I am concerned, any think I can do in this House to ensure that better principles are applied in future, I shall do.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: I wish to raise a point similar to that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basing-stoke (Mr. Mitchell). I do not believe that it would be right for the House to rise for the Easter Recess without the clearest assurance from the Lord President that the Government will take action to remove some of the most objectionable features of the issue of the 714 certificate.
I sometimes think that when we pass legislation in this House we are obsessed by the minutiae of drafting and do not actually understand how the legislation which we enact will operate on the lives of the men and women whom we represent.
In order to try to make the position plain to the Lord President—and, I hope, through him to the Government—I want to take a specific case of "an ordinary working man in my constituency", to quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been grievously injured by the ministration of Schedule 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.
That Act provides that nobody shall be issued with a 714 certificate unless he has
throughout the period of three years ending with the date of his application … been employed in the United Kingdom as the holder of an office or employment or as a person carrying on a trade, profession or vocation.
On 15th January last, Mr. R. P. Knight, who lives in a council house at 73 Sorrel Drive in my constituency, applied for a 714 certificate. Ten weeks later he received a letter, dated 28th March, from the inspector of taxes. That letter read in part as follows:
It is a requirement of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975 that the applicant must have been employed or self-employed throughout the three-year period preceding application.


Here comes the sentence that I want to underline:
As you were unemployed for the 26 weeks in 1974–75, this requirement is not met.
Therefore, because Mr. Knight had the misfortune to be unemployed in the year ended 5th April 1975 for 26 weeks, there has to be heaped upon him, by the specific action of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975, a further misfortune. If there were some degree of culpability in the action of this man being unemployed, I could certainly understand that there might be—

Mr. Ridley: No.

Mr. Gow: I could understand it. But since his unemployment was involuntary, it is inexcusable to visit this further misfortune upon him simply because he was unemployed two years ago.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House that it is no part of the policy of the Government that because a man has been unemployed he is therefore to be penalised in this way. After all, if the underlying trend in unemployment continues, there will be precious few applicants for 714 certificates who have not been unemployed in the three years before application is made.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when replying to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 9th February, told us that the Inland Revenue would interpret Schedule 12 of the Act with humanity, compassion, understanding and sympathy. That is certainly not what is happening in the case of my constituent and this inspector of taxes. I make it plain that no criticism is intended of the officers who administer the instructions, which come from the Treasury. My criticism is directed solely at the inhumanity and lack of understanding by Ministers—in particular, by Ministers at the Treasury.
The second reason for my belief that we should not adjourn for the Easter Recess is that we should have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman about the consultative committee which the Prime Minister announced on 23rd March.

Mr. John Mendelson: Do not waste our time.

Mr. Gow: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "do not waste time", but this is a legitimate area of public and parliamentary interest. If it was not intended to be a matter of parliamentary interest, why did the Prime Minister make his announcement in the House? He told us on 23rd March that he was setting up a consultative committee under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House. That announcement having been made in Parliament, we have been told by the Leader of the House and by the Prime Minister that no kind of answers will be given to us about the membership of the committee, about the number of occasions on which it meets, about the representations which are made by the Government's representatives, and about the representations which are made by the Liberal representatives.
It would be interesting to know, for example, which of the Liberal Members of Parliament are excluded from the committee. Again, are there representatives from another place on the Committee? I hope that the Leader of the House will let us into the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as to how the arrangement is working.
It lies ill on the lips of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite to complain when we seek to interrogate the Government about this matter. It is clear that these consultative procedures offered by the Government to the 13 Liberal Members—whom we shall not see in the next Parliament—are a prerogative and privilege denied to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. Indeed, these new consultative procedures are a constitutional innovation of great importance. That is proved by the fact that the Prime Minister chose to make his announcement during a very important debate in this House two weeks ago today.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there should also be a consultative committee for the Tribune Group? If so, I would find it difficult to follow his logic.

Mr. Gow: I would find it difficult to object to the Prime Minister consulting the Tribune Group officially. It would be salutary if he did so. It would be salutary if he were to meet the Tribune


Group in the presence of Liberal representatives, It is a matter of legitimate interest to this House as to how this constitutional innovation is working. It is unworthy of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to shelter behind the procedures of Parliamentary Questions and effectively to put a stop on Questions being tabled on this subject.
It would be much better—and I think that the Leader of the House will find it so—if he were to take off the stop on Parliamentary Questions, reply frankly and openly about these new consultative procedures, and allow us all to have the doubtful pleasure of learning what goes on in this extraordinary consultative committee of which he, of all people, has been appointed chairman.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I intend to raise a matter that actually has to do with the motion and the business beyond Easter, and I do not intend to make reference to what others have been saying, because I take a rather strict view of the opportunities arising from these debates, which are provided for an important and strict constitutional purpose.
In passing, however, I will say that if there is one thing certain, within the confines of this House and throughout the country, it is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House needs no lesson from the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on the question where he ought to shelter or put his political courage. Anyone who hears the hon. Gentlemen urging my right hon. Friend to have political courage will find his urgings laughable and ridiculous. If there is one quality that has been shown by my right hon. Friend throughout his political life it is his political courage—indeed, it is the most important quality of all.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Mendelson: I have no intention of giving way. I want to raise a point that is very important to those who value the tradition of bringing the views of the country into these Adjournment debates. After all, we are being asked to make the important decision that the House of Commons should not be sitting, and that cannot be done, as everyone knows, without the approval of its Members. The people must be given a good reason why we have agreed to such a motion.
For example, I shall be speaking at a meeting in Penistone later this week, and one of the things that I shall have to report upon is the reason for my agreeing to the Adjournment of the House for Easter. I shall have to explain whether there were not any compelling reasons why it might have been better not to agree to the motion.
The point that I have in mind is the business foreshadowed today for the return of the House after Easter, as that business will be of great importance to the people. Moreover, it is business that the people ought to have time to consider. I refer, of course, to the arrangements for the debate on possible direct elections to the European Parliament, the Common Market Assembly. This is a matter of great constitutional importance to our constituents, because, after all, an election is not only for Members of Parliament: it is primarily for the constituents, for the citizens, for the electorate. What more directly involves their interest and concern than the proposition that a new election should be held and that a new electoral system is possibly to be introduced? I would have thought that, so soon after the publication of the White Paper, the country ought to be given time to consider what is in it.
The professional politicians assembled in this House know from experience that we cannot expect, as soon as the White Paper is published, every citizen, every miner, farmer and doctor, to run to the Stationery Office and before doing anything else obtain a copy of the White Paper on direct elections. I leave out the delays that occur with regard to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Even those people who do rush along at noon on the day of publication are not always in a position to obtain the document they seek. There are limited editions, and they are soon sold out. People then have to wait another six days before the second batch arrives.
It is wholly unjustifiable not to allow a decent and reasonable interval for the country to take cognisance of what is in this important State paper. It may be argued that it is a White Paper with green edges, but that is not easily accepted by our constituents. A White Paper is a White Paper, and people must have a serious opportunity of studying it.
We know that public life is carried forward not only by individuals on their own. Britain has a multi-party system, a free and open society and one in which many associations meet from time to time. Would it not be reasonable to give those associations the opportunity of considering the White Paper if they wish to do so? Most of these organisations meet once every four weeks, or at some such reasonable time. I would not expect that statement to be contradicted. Most of the organisations to which we belong, or with which we have contact, meet at four-weekly intervals. Some of them meet less frequently, because of the geography of constituency associations, for instance. My constituency covers 143 square miles and it is often not possible to hold meetings in every part of the area, even within a period of four weeks. Other right hon. and hon. Members must be in the same position. I leave out some of the largest constituencies in the north of Scotland.
That being the case, there must be very compelling reasons of overriding importance to the crucial and day to day in-interests of the citizens of this country before we can say "There is no time". A debate is to take place almost immediately after the House returns from the Easter Recess, but who can advance any such compelling reasons? Who can seriously suggest that it is important for a major debate on the White Paper, only just published, to be held in the first week after we return? Any hon. Member would only make himself ridiculous if he were to advance such an argument. Moreover, as has been shown by the many voices on all sides of the House of Commons, there is broad agreement that the debate should not take place in the first week but should be postponed to the second week, at the earliest. This view was clearly expressed earlier today.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend might also note that the European Parliament—from the members of which one should take a small amount of advice—will be meeting during that week and, therefore, will not be able to take part in the debate in the first week immediately after the recess.

Mr. Mendelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that important point. It brings in a significant

additional reason. There is also an important constitutional opportunity, which ought to be provided to hon. Members of this House. The Leader of the House is not unfamiliar with it. We have sometimes co-operated with my right hon. Friend, and he knows that I am not normally given to reminding him of his past. It is an honourable past, and he does not need these reminders. I merely make the point to underline what has been common ground between us, that one of the major purposes of the great institution of Parliament is to try to influence the Executive, the Cabinet, not after it has finally made up its mind and brought a decision to Parliament from which it does not want to move, but in the process when it is beginning to make up its mind.
I hope that it will be possible for Government supporters to get together as soon as possible after Parliament reassembles. I hope that before then they will get in contact with their supporters in the country. It is obviously no use hon. Members getting together during the recess, before the House reassembles and before they have had time to contact their supporters in the country. But having had the benefit of that contact they should when they return seek to get together and influence the Government's mind.
Let us assume that they get together on the Wednesday morning and that their meeting finishes at 1 o'clock. At 3.30 on the same afternoon a senior member of the Executive—I do not know who it will be and at this stage it is not necessary for me to know—will stand at the Dispatch Box and give the Government's point of view. No one in his good sense can assume that in the two and a half hours over lunch the Cabinet will have been influenced by what it heard at the meeting between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the same day. The senior Minister's speech will obviously have been written and prepared beforehand, and I would not wish it otherwise. It would be irresponsible not to prepare the speech carefully for such a major occasion.
If there is to be any hope or opportunity of Members of Parliament having any influence at all on the Executive there surely needs to be an interval between their meeting and the opening of the debate. Enough said. I do not want to


labour the point. [Interruption.] I am addressing myself to the House of Commons and not to those hon. Members who are not in the habit of getting together for such democratic consultations but who merely say what they think is politically advantageous to them. The whole agitation surrounding this subject—I have just been reminded by their intervention—has been dominated by the way in which they irresponsibly arrogate to themselves the knowledge and wisdom of the people and what they want with regard to direct elections, without having collected any evidence whatever about how people feel. They are so cocksure about it. We are not so sure, and we want to consult our supporters on these matters.
The Government, the House and the country would lose nothing if the debate were held in the second week. Many hon. Members have expressed support for that action. Since nothing would be lost and since we are not in the middle of a great national crisis, the debate should be held in the second week. That would enable pepole to prepare for two consecutive days' debate, and the country would take more interest. The country is seldom aware of what we are doing, and it would be even less aware if we started a debate on Wednesday, did nothing about it during the next two days and resumed it on Monday. There should be time for reflection and consultation.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In view of the exchanges during business questions today, to which my hon. Friend has referred, does he not agree that if the Government still proceed with their plan, it may cause a procedural problem from which the Government may never be able to free themselves?

Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend's argument is justifiable. It is right to have it on record that he and other hon. Members believe that there should be room for reflection. However, even if the decision were not changed, I would not necessarily come to my hon. Friend's conclusion. Sometimes matters are simpler than they appear to be.
What probably happened was that after useful consultations with the Opposition the impression was formed that the debate should be held at a particular time. The Leader of the House and Govern-

ment representatives, who are responsible for the business, have come to the conclusion, in good faith, that they would please and satisfy most hon. Members by taking the decision that they have taken.
New evidence has been produced in the House today by hon. Members speaking for themselves. The Government should reconsider their decision by responding to the mood of the House and announcing that the debate will take place not on Wednesday and Monday of the first week but on Monday and Tuesday of the second week.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: There was one remark in the speech of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) with which I agreed whole-heartedly. He mentioned the great political courage of the Leader of the House. I agree with him. I could not possibly sit on the Treasury Bench—

Mrs. Dunwoody: We know that.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman once sat on the Front Bench, but he was sacked.

Mr. Ridley: After the Stechford by-election, for the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friends to continue in office is great political courage—if that is the polite way of putting it. He reminds me more each day of his friend Mrs. Gandhi as he approaches the election that inevitably will finish him off. The only difference is that instead of trying to sterilise the Indian population the Leader of the House is sterilising the Liberal-only subcontractors.
Have the Liberals ever suggested that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act—which has not yet been brought into force, although it is through the House—should be abandoned? The Liberals voted against it throughout its passage, during three stormy years. Have they accepted it? I should also like to know whether the Liberals have accepted the Dock Work Regulation Act, which has not yet come into force. The Liberals voted against it throughout all its stages. Have they suggested in the consultative committee that those bits of legislation should not be brought into force? We were told by the Leader of the Liberal


Party that there would be no more Socialism in our time. The way of achieving that objective would be for the Liberals to force the Government, as one condition for their support, to drop those pieces of legislation.
Perhaps an arrangement can be worked out whereby we can question the Leader of the House about these matters, or even question the Liberals as I suggested the other day, about what they want. It would be helpful to know.
The Liberals also voted against the implementation of the 714 certificates. I was grateful to my hon. Friends for their support during the Supply Day debate on that topic. I wonder whether one of the conditions of the Leader of the Liberal Party was that there should be at least a moratorium, if not an abandonment, of the proposal to drive small sub-contractors out of business by refusing them certificates.
There is now total administrative chaos in the operation of the scheme. The certificate comes into force today. If a sub-contractor does not have his certificate, he has to be paid net, less 35 per cent. from today. Therefore, this is a suitable day for the House to consider whether it should adjourn for Easter before something is done about that. We are told that no decision has been given to 25,000 people and that 12,000 people have been told that they can have a certificate eventually but that they cannot have one now, because, for some reason, the certificate manufacturing process is well behindhand. This Government are good at manufacturing certificates. It is surprising that of all the bureaucratic activities of the Government the most fruitful should be the manufacture of certificates. Yet it is on that that they have fallen down.
The certificate comprises a piece of cardboard with a photograph. It must be made in Swansea, which has not got a good reputation for bureaucracy.

Mr. Gow: Perhaps it has been subcontracted to Ebbw Vale.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps that is the explanation.
Recently, I wrote to the Financial Secretary about one of my constituents, Mr. E. Southern of 8 Ley Orchard, Willersey,

Broadway, Worcestershire. The Financial Secretary replied:
I am very sorry for the delay in preparing the certificate. The Inland Revenue have asked me to pass on their apologies to both Mr. Southern and yourself, and to say that the trouble was caused by a slip-up in one of their local offices. You will be pleased however, to have it confirmed that the application has been successful and that the Inspector of Taxes has written to Mr. Southern to tell him so.
Apart from its being a little hard to take away a man's living because of a slip-up, there is a more serious aspect. Mr. Southern has had that letter confirmed by an Inland Revenue Press release dated 16th March. It reads:
The Inland Revenue will not take action against any contractor (including a local authority) who, until he has had evidence of the certificate itself, treats such a letter as evidence of certification and, accordingly, makes payment gross to the sub-contractor concerned.
That is illegal. I shall quote not from the schedule of the Act but from the Inland Revenue leaflet on the tax deduction scheme. It says that the contractor must, before paying gross,
check that the certificate is a genuine one issued by the Inland Revenue—an example is shown on the Contractor's Checking Guide, a copy of which is at Appendix G…. If the contractor is satisfied, as a result of these checks, that the sub-contractor is the authorised holder of a valid certificate, he must make the payment without deduction. If he is not satisfied, he must make the deduction".
So heavy penalties are imposed on a contractor who pays gross when the subcontractor does not have the actual certificate. He is inviting heavy penalties, yet the Inland Revenue is here advising him to accept a mere letter, without even a photograph or a cardboard certificate to identify whether the sub-contractor is genuine.
Here, the Government, through the Inland Revenue, are urging citizens to break the law. This is one of the most appalling administrative muddles that we have ever witnessed. It makes the child benefit scheme, which, heaven knows, was bad enough, look like a tea party. Are we to have an announcement today, on the day that the scheme is introduced? Will the Government think again, knowing that 37,000 sub-contractors are still without certificates? Will they decide not to bring in the scheme, now that the Inland Revenue is circulating subcontractors and asking them to break the


law? Will the Government have second thoughts?
My final point of substance is still unmet. In the words of the Financial Secretary, the main reason why these certificates are not being issued is that in the opinion of the tax inspectors some contractors are not—and I quote—"good taxpayers". This new crime of not being a good taxpayer must not be used in future to take away people's living.
I have a secret to impart to the House. I do not think that I am a good taxpayer myself. I try to avoid paying my taxes until the last due day arrives. I am sure that I would not be given a 714 certificate on those grounds alone. I am delighted to see the Treasury Minister here. I hope that he, too, is a good taxpayer—that he always pays his taxes as soon as he possibly can and never waits until the last moment, so that he has never caused himself to get on the black list of an inspector.
This new crime of not being a good taxpayer, which may well properly fall to be dealt with by stiffer penalties and heavier fines on those who are late or avoid paying their taxes, should not be dealt with by taking away the right to earn one's living. It is a fundamental point of social justice and human rights, which the Lord President, with all his great political courage, would do well to meet, as his last service before we rise, and before the present House disappears.
I am against the motion, because I think that we should go away tomorrow and never come back. A new House of Commons should come back—a House that is representative of the people, because the present House is not representative of the people. Before that happens, the Lord President could retrieve the whole of his reputation as a democrat and someone who respects human rights if he said this afternoon that the Government have decided to do something about this scandal.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I have been in the House for many years, and I do not think that there has been a time when there have been so many points that I wished to raise in a debate, because there are many matters that ought to be discussed, both national matters and those

affecting my own constituency. However, I shall not bore the House by going through the whole of my list, which would be very long.
I wish to raise two points, the first on behalf of British agriculture. Today in agriculture we find ourselves in the unhappy position of having no decision reported to us by the Minister on the price review determinations in Brussels. Reference has been made to the Liberals and the deputation that came from the West Country first to the Liberals and then to the West Country Conservative Members. It is really amazing that the Liberals have the cheek to puff themselves up into such a position as to say that they will negotiate with the Government so that these things can be determined, and that they will let my farming friends in the West Country know in due course, yet on the first occasion when they could raise this matter in the House and call for a statement and for a debate, I cannot see a single Liberal Member in the House.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend may wish to know that when I went into the Lobby recently I saw two members of the Liberal Party from the other place and two from this House wandering through, perhaps coming from some pre-conclave meeting before dictating their terms to the Lord President.

Mr. Mills: That is very interesting, but I always understood that a constituency Member should raise these matters on the Floor of the House. That is what I seek to do.
The farmers and farm workers of the West Country, when the time comes, will have rumbled the hollowness of the Liberal Party in these matters. I am asking the Leader of the House for a statement from the Ministry of Agriculture. Delays in this determination do not help British agriculture. Confidence needs to be restored. These figures are alarming. It appears that production will have dropped by 10 per cent. this year. This is of no benefit to consumers in this country, let alone the farming community.
The consumer needs home production, and that means that the Government have to agree in Brussels to determine price levels for the coming year. Nature does not wait for Brussels. Planting, sowing


and tilling go on apace. Farmers want to know where they are. The Minister has done a grave disservice to British agriculture by not coming to some agreement with the Community. Obviously, we should like a debate, but that is not possible, so we must have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture on this matter.
Another month's delay—because that is what it will mean—is totally unfair on those who are seeking to produce food that this country needs. We cannot go on relying on ever-increasing imports of food. It is a myth to suggest that we can buy cheaper elsewhere. We can certainly buy small parcels and small lots elsewhere, but we need to rely on home production, and the Government, by their failure to come to a decision on this matter, have undermined the confidence of British agriculture.
We need action on the green pound. I am willing to state my own position on this matter. I believe that we need to take two steps in the transitional period and that we need a small devaluation in the green pound of perhaps 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. That would help to restore the confidence that is needed. There does not need to be a general increase in prices throughout the Community. British agriculture could come up towards parity by the steps that I have outlined.
The Minister says that he is fighting for the consumers. It is a very strange way of fighting, when he is upsetting the home producers on whom this country relies so much. I hope that we shall have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture before the House rises.
Lastly, we need a statement from the Home Office on the very serious position at Dartmoor Prison, in my constituency. There is a great deal of anger about the accommodation there. The prison officers reported to me yesterday that they had rejected the Home Secretary's offer to improve their homes. They say that that is not good enough, and I agree with them. I understand that industrial action will continue to be taken. That is why we need an urgent statement from the Home Secretary on this important and potentially dangerous matter.
Dartmoor is a special case, because of its climate. Anyone who has lived up there knows what it is like. While the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary are snug and warm in their homes over Easter, and while the prisoners in the prison are snug and warm in their accommodation, the men who look after them will be living in Cornish unit houses which are draughty and damp. It is a scandal that these men should be treated in this way. I hold no brief for the industrial action, but I can understand why these men are taking it. Therefore, we want to hear from the Home Office that it is intended to improve this accommodation.
I apologise to the Leader of the House, since I have another engagement at 7 o'clock and I shall be unable to be here for his answers. I urge him, however, to pass on my remarks to the Minister of Agriculture and the Home Secretary.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am delighted that the Lord President has at last given us a debate on sport and recreation, and I shall, therefore, not waste the time for that debate by speaking for more than a couple of minutes in this debate.
It would be wrong for hon. Members to go away for Easter without supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Devon West (Mr. Mills) in his complaint about the treatment of agriculture in recent months. It is iniquitous that we should be going away without a conclusion having been reached on the Brussels price review.
The Lord President should give some encouragement to pig producers who are suffering more than any other branch of farming. The 50p per score subsidy has long since been absorbed, and pig farmers are losing substantial sums of money every week. In the interests of the long-term production of food we need a statement by the Minister as soon as possible about the price review, pigs and the adjustment of the mca, which is in the long-term interests of the housewife. There is anger and resentment among the farming community in my constituency, and I hope that the right


hon. Gentleman will give a firm indication that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement to allay these fears.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the Leader of the House were to decide to bring the House back immediately after Easter I should be prepared to speak for a day and a half on the subject that matters most to me but appears not to matter to the Labour movement—the value of child benefit.
In a Written Answer yesterday the Government indicated that child benefit and the tax allowance for the second child needed to be increased by 13 per cent. to cover the movement in prices since last April. There is no proposal in the Budget for this to be taken into account. There is no plan, as a result of the Government's discussions with union leaders, to take account of any pay settlement or of the effect of inflation on the costs of bringing up children.
If one estimates that inflation will run at 13 per cent. in the next 12 months one sees that the effective devaluation of child benefit would be 25 per cent. That would be a remarkable achievement by the Government, especially since they do not bother to discuss it with those to whom it matters most—the working people of the country.
We hear Clive Jenkins talking about 34 per cent. pay claims for some of his members. I do not doubt that many of them deserve that amount; most of us deserve higher pay. But what about the 14 million people who look after 14 million children? The Government have allowed the pay of those people to fall by 25 per cent. over two years, and have not paid much attention to it. That seems the sort of scandal that is worth bringing the House back early to discuss.
I may be told that the TUC will be taking this matter up in the same way as it takes up the problems of unemployment and pensions. If the TUC is to take up all the problems that affect everyone in the country we might as well invite it to come here and arrange for the Government to meet in Congress House.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: The Leader of the House has a lot to answer for, and I hope that he makes

a good job of answering. If there were any risk of the House not passing this motion it would be sad, since the right hon. Gentleman would be denied a recess, and he needs a recess more than anyone else needs it. He has had a very rough term.
When he was announcing the businesss this afternoon he said, against the wishes of some hon. Members, that it would be wrong to have two days of debate on direct elections in one week. He decided to split the debate by four or five days. A couple of months ago, when he was in more robust order, in replying to an amendment on the Scotland and Wales Bill, he said that he did not believe that our political system held that wisdom lay in the middle. I think that he has changed his mind about that and that today he finds that it does.
The right hon. Gentleman returned after the last recess full of hope and ebullience, but since then has suffered a series of accidents and misfortunes—although I would not regard them as misfortunes. He has lost a series of Divisions and the Government have lost a series of by-elections. They have lost the main Bill in their legislative programme and they are able still to be here as a minority Government only by adopting an artificial limb, which seems to be somewhat unreliable and which has been completely invisible all this afternoon.
The Government depend upon the votes of the Liberal Party in order to survive. Without those votes the right hon. Gentleman would not be on the Government Front Bench. My hon. Friends were quite right to raise this matter and express their dissatisfaction with ministerial responsbility under this arrangement.
The Liberal Leader, the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), made a major point about the agreement being a public agreement, which had to be written down so that everyone could study it and understand it. We have heard nothing more about it, however, than we heard in the debate on the motion of censure, and that is an unsatisfactory arrangement.
It is extraordinary that the Government should rely on the Liberals and that the Liberals should put their faith in the Government and appear to be part of the Government, but should be determined to stay on the Opposition side of


the House. They should explain that point more satisfactorily than they have.
The Liberals have voted against the Government already since the pact was drawn up. The occasion was the defence expenditure debate. They almost voted against the Government on the question of the petrol tax increase. They wanted to, but they were prevented from doing so. They are liable to vote against the Government on the question of the green pound. This matter is therefore entirely appropriate for hon. Members to raise, and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was wrong to criticise by hon. Friend from raising it. The arrangement is most unsatisfactory. The Leader of the House must know that the Government depend on this new-found alliance.
The right hon. Gentleman has been very busy in his talks with various parties and groups in the House, but I regret that he has dragged his feet over the talks on devolution. I appreciate that when the Government were challenged on the motion of censure the right hon. Gentleman had to have conversations with all the parties, particularly the Liberals. Since then he has committed himself to talks with members representing Northern Ireland. That was part of the deal that was done to try to win their support. He has numerous conversations in progress with groups in his party. I urge him, however, to leave sufficient time after the recess to progress more actively on the important questions that have arisen out of the subject of devolution. As he knows very well, it is my view that, if we are to do our job with the maximum degree of responsibility in these matters it is right that the parties should talk together and see what can be thrashed out for the future of the government of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
The Lord President has a number of matters to answer which have been raised by my hon. Friends. There is the question of the phantom committee, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), to be presided over by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). I do not mean any offence when I say that the right hon. Gentleman is in some respects becoming something of a phantom figure himself.
There is the important question of the 714 certificates, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) and Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), and very strongly pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). There is a serious grievance over the penalties that the people concerned suffer and the obstacles that have been put in their way. They are being singled out for specially harsh treatment. They feel—we have some sympathy with this view—that the Government are continuing some kind of vendetta against them, and they do not think that they are being treated in any way fairly. That is a matter that we wish to hear more about from the Leader of the House in a moment.
There was the question of agriculture, raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro), as well as the various points raised by Labour Members—the question of hospitals and industrial disputes and the question of the direct labour Bill particularly as it affects Birmingham. The poor ratepayers of Birmingham, according to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), seem to be suffering an unfortunate fate, because, according to him, they are being screwed by the building industry of that city. At any rate, there is a great deal of unhappiness there.
I wish to add two matters of my own. One is the Government's attitude towards Northern Ireland. The Government are lacking any sound, constructive and progressive policy for Northern Ireland. We know that they are doing their best, as they think, on the security aspect, but it appears that they are, as it were, sitting twiddling their thumbs and hoping for the best, with no constructive policy for Northern Ireland. After the terrorism and the awful events that keep occurring there, this is a subject which the House will want to return to after the recess.
I come now to a local matter affecting my own constituency. Many counties suffered a serious blow when the rate support grant was announced. My own county of Cambridgeshire suffered as heavily and severely as any. Since this local authority responded positively to the Government's earlier requests for economy and good housekeeping and it is cutting back on its spending, for it then


to receive a cut infinitely greater than it had any reason to expect was to treat it in an unreasonable way which was extremely harsh on the ratepayers of the county.
I am not the only Member representing Cambridgeshire. There are three others of my hon. Friends involved. We regard it as most unfair and unreasonable treatment to be meted out.
I have some anxiety about the statements made by the Secretary of State for the Environment today and earlier this week. The implication of his statement today could be that the Government might contemplate rather severe treatment for the counties again next year. It is our intention and our purpose to try to persuade the Government to be less mealy-mouthed and less mean in their treatment of the counties. Everyone in my part of the world feels that what has been meted out to Cambridgeshire is thoroughly unreasonable and grossly unfair.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury that we ought not to come back at all. We ought to have a General Election, because there is great dissatisfaction in the country at what is happening at present. The hon. Member for Penistone must be oblivious of what people think if he will not find out until next week what people have in their minds. He seemed to be concerned about having to explain to a meeting next Wednesday why Parliament had an Easter Recess. If the people of Penistone, whom he has represented for many years now, do not know why the House has a recess, he cannot have treated them fairly or reasonably in recent times.
It is perfectly clear from the evidence collected lately that what this Government are doing by their policies, with the limping help of the invisible Liberal Party, is not what most of the British people want. It is not in any sense a successful policy, and when we come back after the recess we shall challenge the Government on it. They must come forward with solutions to rising unemployment and falling living standards. They must produce new policies which will have the effect of getting the country back to a prosperous state and improving our present unhappy economic performance.
I admit that the Government are arranging to return to the important question of elections to the European Parliament. They are losing no time on that, which is quite correct. The urgency of the debate lies in their being committed to using their best endeavours, but it seems that, but for the ending of the Scotland and Wales Bill, their best endeavours would not have been seen in any shape or form. The Scotland and Wales Bill ended, I think, six weeks ago—

Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that one ought to be quite sure what is in the minds of one's constituents on current questions. Has he recently consulted his constituents in Cambridgeshire, which I know well, on the question of direct elections and has he such support among them for direct elections? Can he give some evidence?

Mr. Pym: I am in constant consultation with my constituents, but I should like to be able to do it better than I have been able to do in recent months. I should like to have an election to consult them properly and let them come forward with their conclusions. That is what we are asking for. The hon. Gentleman does not want an election, because he knows that he will get a dusty answer.
The subject of direct elections has been discussed for a long time. One of the Government's options in the White Paper with green edges—the compulsory dual mandate—has been destroyed already by the Lord President himself. Obviously, we cannot get through any business if there is to be constant interruption if we cannot take business here because European Members of Parliament are absent. Plainly, that system will not work. Moreover, I cannot think that the Labour Party, any more than the Conservative Party, will be enamoured of the national list system.
We shall discuss these matters, but they are not so complicated or so new as has been suggested. We could perfectly well have both the debates on the first day back, particularly if business is to be on the Adjournment. There is no reason why we cannot debate it while the European Parliament is sitting.
We shall certainly return to study the question of defence again, and we shall express our anxieties about the weakening of our defences. These are massive


matters to be considered. Despite the vote the other night, we do not have confidence in the present Government or in their policies. The sooner they go with their artificial limb and the rest of it, the better, and the sooner will the country have a Conservative Government, which is what the country needs.

6.58 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) for his solicitude about my health. I shall come in the latter part of my remarks to the other major matters he raised but I thought that I should begin by thanking him for his kindness in approaching the matter in that way.
In reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) perhaps I could disclose the worst-kept secret of all time. It is true that I did not vote for him at the last election. However, I assure him that that has not warped my mind in any way in the reply I shall give to his questions.
The hon. Gentleman recited a rather lengthy list of dates which have been passed in the establishment of what the right hon. Gentleman called the phantom committee on the film industry. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolutely definite answer now. The interim action committee to be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is to be appointed very soon. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, but as he has already waited so long I do not think that it is a hardship to wait a little longer still. I assure him that the remarks he has made on the subject have been fully taken to heart.
The second question the hon. Member for Hampstead raised was on the operation of the rent register and the legal aspects of the matter. I agree with what he said about the "Ham and High"—the Hampstead and High gate Express—and the way in which it has brought these matters to the public. I have the highest respect for it. However, his point was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and I do not

believe that I can be expected to alter the legal position in any sense in replying to an Adjournment debate of this character.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) raised the question of the Grunwick Laboratories which fits into the proper form of this debate. This is a matter where action is required, and it is necessary for opinions to be expressed in the House.
This dispute was made official by APEX, but the company has refused to meet the union. At the end of last year APEX referred recognition to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service but the company refused to co-operate in the ACAS inquiry. In March this year ACAS issued a report recommending recognition of APEX, and offering help in settling the problems. There has been no move so far in the implementation of that recommendation, and if it is not implemented within two months APEX can go to the Central Arbitration Committee for a binding award. The Employment Protection Act was introduced in order to assist in dealing with matters of this kind. I hope that the whole House will support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South in urging the employers to talk with ACAS.
I hope that hon. Members will also agree that ACAS has played a part in settling a multitude of disputes ever since it was established, and that it is held in the highest possible respect by employers, trade unions and everyone.
It is most deplorable that the recommendation of ACAS has not been respected by the employers, and even more deplorable that such events as those described by my hon. Friend are continuing. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government have the fullest possible sympathy with the view he has expressed, and I hope that what has been said in the House on these matters will be respected by the employers. I hope that everyone will seek to get obedience of the law in this case. We hear a lot from Conservative Members about obeying the law on other occasions, and I hope that they will urge obedience of the law in this case.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) raised a point that was touched


upon by many other hon. Members opposite. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire suggested that the Government were conducting a vendetta against the people affected by 714 certificates. I hope very much that he will not continue to subscribe to any such suggestion. The Government are not carrying out any vendetta. We are simply seeking to deal with what most people agreed was a general abuse. When the Conservatives sought to deal with this they were not successful and we believed that action had to be taken.
Two years' notice was given to those affected, and the relevant legislation was passed 18 months ago. The Government had to take firm action because previous schemes failed to have any proper effect in dealing with the problem. Between 1972 and 1975 the industry had the chance to operate a loosely drawn scheme without abusing it. Unfortunately, parts of the industry could not resist the temptation, and there were widespread abuses which brought the whole industry into disrepute.
By mid-March there were 294,000 applications for 714 certificates, of which 220,000 were granted and 24,000 rejected. This matter was fully debated on 9th February, and we cannot conduct a further full debate at this stage about the reasons for Government action in introducing the measure into the Finance Bill. The debate on 9th February gave another opportunity for the working of the Act to be discussed. I am not saying that there can be no further discussion on the operation of the Act, but I do not believe that anyone would expect me to give fresh pronouncements on its workings in reply to a debate of this nature.

Mr. David Mitchell: But can the Lord President answer the specific question about the implications given in a parliamentary answer that a further application, once one had been rejected, can be made afresh and considered?

Mr. Foot: I cannot comment on individual aspects of the question or on individual cases. It would not be appropriate in replying to a debate on the Easter Adjournment. I cannot go into details of that nature. After all, the purpose of the Adjournment debate is for hon. Members to give reasons why we

should not depart for the recess. Certainly these matters will continue to be raised by hon. Gentlemen when the House meets again, but they do not form a good reason why the House should not adjourn for the Easter Recess.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I agree entirely with the spirit of what the Leader of the House has said, but would he not agree that, apart from particular details of policy or individual cases, there appears to be a prima facie case of maladministration on the part of the Inland Revenue? Would he lend his weight to a submission to the Ombudsman?

Mr. Foot: I would not accept that without much greater investigation. A charge of maladministration on the part of the Inland Revenue would need much more detailed investigation. As I have already indicated, a huge number of cases have been dealt with and have gone forward in a perfectly satisfactory manner. Those which have not been dealt with satisfactorily may have particular circumstances applying to them, and it would be wrong for me to try to pass judgment on them in reply to this debate.
On the general measure introduced by the Government, I repeat that it was introduced for very good reasons. The House recognised that the measure constituted an attempt to deal with widespread abuses. In the main it is working well. If there are anomalies and difficulties hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise them when the House meets again. That does not mean that they should oppose the motion to adjourn.

Mr. Gow: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will look again at the anomaly whereby a period of unemployment during the three years before the moment of application for a certificate should be an element that precludes the granting of a certificate?

Mr. Foot: I would not give that answer without examing all the details involved in such a case. I cannot add to what was said by my hon. Friend who replied to the debate on 9th February. The fact that that debate took place then shows that hon. Members are perfectly able to raise the matter in different ways.


If there is such a widespread and legitimate feeling that abuses exist—and I pass no judgment on that one way or the other—the hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising the matter when the House returns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raised the question of the direct labour Bill. I fully understand his anxieties about the fact that the Bill has not been brought forward. He attributes this to what he called the "machinations" between the Government and the Liberal Party, and I will come to the more general question on that matter later. There have been no machinations. That word carries sinister implications. My hon. Friend nods his head. I expect that is why he used it. There are no machinations in this sense.
In order to get the Bill through the House of Commons, we have to get a majority. My hon. Friend will understand that fully. Therefore, it is no use our proceeding with the Bill unless we can get a majority for it. The discussions that have taken place will enable us, I believe, to be able to secure a majority for the Bill. It will not achieve all the things that many of us would wish, but we shall be able to do that a little later, when we have a fuller majority in the House, which we expect to secure after the next General Election. We shall then be able to deal with all these matters. My hon. Friend does not want to wait for some sort of Bill till then. We shall bring forward a Bill not of the further far-reaching character that we would have wished but of some character to deal with these problems at a fairly early date.
In the meantime, however, if my hon. Friend will communicate to us—I dare say that he will have done so already: he is one of the most diligent and active Members—details of the situation in Birmingham, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will certainly look into them immediately and carefully to see whether his Department can assist in dealing with the immediate problem there. My hon. Friend has told the House very fully of the kind of action being taken by Birmingham Council. It is very sad that the controlling hands into which Birmingham Council has fallen are the main cause of these problems. We

cannot solve that matter. We certainly cannot solve the problem before the House departs for the Easter Recess. However, my hon. Friend can raise these matters immediately with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He can raise the particular matters and some particular developments.
We certainly hope to bring forward the Bill at a fairly early stage in a form in which it will be able to assist the situation and to proceed fairly speedily on to the statute book.
I come now to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I am not forgetting the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). I would not do that for one moment. However, I set aside some of the matters that he mentioned because they deal with other more general questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury raised the question of what happened in the hospital in his area. He put the question extremely fairly, in the sense that he said that, in a normal case, he would not seek to set his judgment against that of those who have been charged with dealing with these matters. However, what my hon. Friend was concerned about was the manner in which this has been undertaken, despite all the warnings that he had given about it. I shall certainly see that the matter is looked into afresh and that my hon. Friend has some proper communication from the Department concerned, both on the action itself and on the manner in which it has been undertaken. I do not have any fuller answer to give to my hon. Friend now, but I shall see how speedily we can get an answer to him.
Till at least my hon. Friend has the answer and can pass judgment on that. I hope that he will hold his hand on the sanctions that he was intending to apply. He shakes his head. We shall have to wait and see. However, if every Member were to apply the individual sanctions that he could apply in this House, it is true, as my hon. Friend indicates, that the whole place could be brought to a standstill. I am not saying that my hon. Friend has chosen exactly the best moment, even with his great parliamentary skill, which, I say


genuinely, I respect very greatly and never underestimate. Any Minister who underrated my hon. Friend's capacity to throw a spanner in the works would be very foolish. I am not, therefore, under rating his challenge at all, but he cannot do all that much between now and the passage of the motion before us. I hope that by the time the House meets again we shall have softened his ire and helped to cure the grievance that he has properly raised on behalf of his constituents. I hope that the House will then be able to proceed without the obstacle race that I know that my hon. Friend can present to the House when it is carrying through other matters.
I shall be coming to the Liberals. There are one or two other hon. Members who wanted to raise certain matters. Perhaps I may turn first to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). He raised a matter that it was absolutely legitimate to raise at this stage and a matter touching a question of absolute first importance for the country and the House of Commons. I do not deny that for a moment. I also think that it is quite right that the House of Commons should have a chance of expressing its view on the matter in general terms before the Government come to final decisions. That is the most essential claim that my hon. Friend is making.
Of course, the timings of the debates that I have suggested take that fully into account. There will be no decision by the Government or by the Cabinet—beyond those already sketched out in the White Paper—prior to the secret discussions to which my hon. Friend referred and prior to the debate in the House. My hon. Friend elaborated, with his customary skill, fear about the difficulties that the House would be in on the Wednesday when we return, a statement having to be made here by the Minister and everything then having to be decided very rapidly between the conclusion of our secret meetings elsewhere and the beginning of our discussions here. I do not believe that this is the state of affairs with which we shall be confronted.
I think that what will happen is that there will be discussions in the different parties and there will be the general discussion in the House of the White Paper, in which various different choices have

been set out and described, and at the end of that debate the Government and the country will have full opportunity of being able to see what has been said in the House.
It cannot be said that the matter has been rushed to such a degree that the debate will not be successful. Indeed, most of the pressure that has come from other sections of the House over recent months has been to say that we should have dealt with this matter a long time ago. That has been the view of the official Opposition in some respects. However, most of those who have now had a chance of looking at the White Paper will see that it raises—not because of the Government's attitude but because of the inherent problem involved—very important, far-reaching constitutional questions.
We must have the chance to discuss them fully and freely in the House. I certainly accept that. However, in arranging the business for the week when we return and the subsequent week we were confronted with some difficulties. I do not propose to trespass on the normal practices in any sense, I trust, but discussions take place prior to debates here.
There are sections of the House that would have wished to have the whole of this debate in the first week. They are perfectly entitled to hold that view. If that were to occur, one of the difficulties would be that this two-day debate would have clashed entirely with the debate taking place on the Assembly in Europe. I think that that was a legitimate reason for saying that we should seek to postpone at any rate part of the debate till a later period. My hon. Friend says "Why not postpone the whole of it to a later date?" If we had done that we would have clashed with another section of Members who would be absent at the later time. Moreover, it would completely disregard the opinion that has been put forward in other parts of the House that we should have the debate in the first week. Therefore, we had to balance the two considerations.
It is true that one of the added difficulties in arranging the business of the House, particularly when we are discussing matters that affect European procedures and arrangements, is that many hon. Members are engaged in the business of other places. My hon. Friend


himself has often been engaged in such activities. That also adds to the difficulties of arranging a debate that suits all hon. Members in all the different parts of the House. The Government have to take into account the representations made on these matters by the official Opposition. I am sure that all hon. Members understand that. What I have sought to do is to take account of all considerations.
I cannot say that what I have proposed has met with universal, instant approval, but that does not mean that what I have proposed is not wise. In the end it may well be discovered that we are able to have a full debate, and that at the end of that debate the Government will be able to take it into account. That is all that I have to say on that subject. If I have not persuaded my hon. Friend, I am very sorry. There is no hon. Member that I should be more eager to persuade. However, I believe that the experiment will work and that we shall have a full debate, and the Government will not make up their minds on the matters posed in the White Paper till they have heard what has been said in the House of Commons.
There will then have to be a Bill, which will also give rise to considerable debate. Therefore, when my hon. Friend says that the matter should be debated widely in the country I entirely agree to the extent that the more widely it is debated the more will many people see the seriousness of the constitutional implication. The national debate on this subject will not be brought to an end on the Monday week after we return. Even the Cabinet debate will not be brought to an end. In fact, in those circumstances, it will then start. It is no use hon. Members laughing. Lord Chatham said that all Cabinets are divided and I am not, therefore, revealing any great historical secret if I say that occasionally there are glimpses of differences of attitude and emphasis in the present Cabinet. I hope that if I am quoted it will be exactly in those soporific words.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was among a large number of hon. Members who, having addressed the House powerfully and passionately, sent polite notes to say that they would not be present to hear me

reply. I am particularly sorry not to be able to reply to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury because he said that he was searching for a polite way to put things, and we all thought that he was under considerable strain. I am not surprised that he has had to retire altogether, and I hope that it will not be thought discourteous of me if I leave my reply to a time when I can say exactly what I think to his face. I should prefer to do things in that way.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) raised questions about agriculture. The Council of Ministers meeting of 29th March did not reach agreement on Community agricultural support prices for 1977–78. The United Kingdom delegation pressed for a settlement that would be fair to the housewife as well as the farmer. We were unable to secure that, but we shall renew our efforts. I thought that when the Minister of State reported to the House he commanded widespread support for what he had to say. I believe that all the British people, including the farming community, are glad to see that we have such a powerful British voice in these discussions, and to see that British interests are being safeguarded by the Minister of Agriculture.
The hon. Member for Devon, West also asked about prison officers. A scheme for the improvement of prison officers' quarters at Dartmoor is the subject of discussion between the Home Office and the Prison Officers Association. The Home Secretary hopes that outstanding issues will be quickly resolved so that the scheme can be implemented.
I have now gone through most of the matters that have been raised, except some major ones that I intended to reserve till the end.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) raised questions about Chancellor's Budget proposals. Obviously, there will be a full opportunity to discuss that matter when the Finance Bill comes before us. I should have thought that that was the proper way to do things.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The point that I was trying to make in a brief intervention was that this matter is linked with the Government's discussion with trade union leaders. If there are pay rises of 30 per cent. or even 13 per cent.


there will be a devaluation of child benefit by 13 per cent. and that would be far greater in its impact than a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound. The Government do not seem to realise that.

Mr. Foot: I do not accept those figures, but the matter can be debated during the Finance Bill. I cannot argue the matter with the hon. Gentleman now because I have already spoken at great length in seeking to reply to the points that have been made by hon. Members opposite. If I made my remarks too brief the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite would say that I was treating the House with disrespect by not replying to the matters that have been raised.
In reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry, I must point out that I have already dealt with questions on the direct elections debate. I hope that I have removed any suggestion that I was behaving as a remorseless bureaucrat. I was taking account of opinions in different parts of the House about how the debate should be conducted.
The hon. Member for Oswestry, also raised the matter of the dealings that he has had with Liberals in his constituency. I fully understand the hon. Member's sensitivity about the Liberal vote in his constituency.
The hon. Member also made representations about the Agee and Hosenball debate and asked whether that had been raised in our discussions with the Liberals. Apart from the times when the matter has been raised in the House there have been no special discussions with the Liberals on it. That matter has been raised most persistently by my hon. Friends who believe that the matter should be debated in the House because questions of civil liberties may be involved. I fully accept that this is the case, and the Government have given an absolute guarantee to my hon. Friends that we shall have a debate in which these various questions can be discussed.
I now turn to the speech that was made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. He made the accusation that the Government are dragging their feet over devolution. I never knew that he was quite such an enthusiast for devolution. We know how eager the right hon. Gentleman has been to press ahead with discussions and legislation. I am sure he would

agree that the quicker we can put a wide-ranging statute on the book the better he will be pleased. However, I did not fully grasp the measure of his impatience, but I do so now and I shall take it into account. I hope that the discussions with him and others can be renewed. I cannot give any absolute date, but I am taking fully into account the representations that they have made, and I hope that I shall not be asked to hold up the Adjournment of the House in order that we may have these discussions with them. We shall try to hold renewed discussions speedily.
Our discussions with the Liberal Party seem to have given rise to interest and, indeed, annoyance among hon. Members opposite, who have questions that they want to put to the Liberals, but it would be difficult for them to do that today—although that is neither here nor there. The Liberals are of age and can speak for themselves, and I am sure that they will do so on future occasions.
The Opposition should take my advice on the matter and try to suppress their curiosity and their determination to batter at this door so often, because the more that they do so the more they indicate that we made a wise and reasonable arrangement. Of course, the Conservatives do not like it, because they do not like being defeated in votes, particularly in a vote of confidence. They were roundly and soundly defeated on a vote of confidence and they have been licking their wounds ever since; but they should not bare their wounds in the House. I shall give the Conservatives some advice, although I know that they are not eager to take it, and that is, that they should keep quiet on this subject and should not press any questions, then there might be much more anxiety in other quarters. However, I cannot instruct the Conservatives any further about how they should run their business.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: If we were given a verbatim record of the discussions that were held between the Liberals and Labour Ministers the public could form their own conclusions about whether there was any value in them at all.

Mr. Foot: I should have thought that the value has been pretty clearly


expressed, and that that is why Conservative Members are so annoyed. That is the cause of their anger.
It is no novelty in the history of Parliament for arrangements to be made between the parties in the House so that the Conservative Party does not win elections—and that is greatly in the national interest. Arrangements of that character have been made at previous times in our history, and it has often been the case that conversations have taken place between the parties. That is a matter for which there is no ministerial responsibility in the form in which hon. Gentleman opposite have so far put their questions. I suggest that they should search for other ways of putting their questions which may have a better chance of eliciting information.
I should have thought that what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was quite clear. There is nothing to conceal and there are no secret clauses. My right hon. Friend made a statement on the nature of the understanding and it was confirmed by the Leader of the Liberal Party. As the country has been able to see, the understanding has great benefits for the nation.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: While on the subject of Liberals, living and dead and visible and invisible, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before the Adjournment, the Government will be making a move on Mentmore, the home of a former Liberal Prime Minister?

Mr. Foot: An answer was given in the House about Mentmore the other day and I have nothing to add to what was said then by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
In conclusion—I always find it wise to announce that one's peroration is coming in order to get cheers beforehand, since they may not be available afterwards—I say to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire that we shall have many more such debates in this Parliament. There will be the Adjournment debates for Whitsun, summer and Christmas this year, four more next year and two or three—I have not worked out exactly how many—in 1979. All these matters can be raised again in those debates, but I think that hon. Members will see that the Government will have disposed of them satis-

factorily and when we have a similar debate this time next year, Opposition Members will have to fabricate some other subjects on which to attack the Government.
I know that the whole House will unite in wishing to speed ahead to an election in which the Government will be able to get a full majority. That is what we wish. I know that Opposition Members would like to get an election soon, but we do not propose to order our affairs to gratify the Conservative Central Office. Some of us did not come into political life for that purpose and nothing that I have seen of the conduct of Opposition Members suggests that I should adopt that course now. However, I do not wish to say anything to mar the unanimity for which I appeal, and I hope that the motion can be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn till Tuesday 19th April.

PRE-RELEASE HOSTELS FOR PRISONERS

7.33 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to pre-release hostels and for connected purposes.
The pre-release hostel scheme is an excellent one in many respects. It allows a prisoner who is shortly to leave prison to acclimatise, to some degree, to living in the outside world. By no means all prisoners are permitted to take advantage of pre-release, but those who are thought suitable move into a hostel a short while before their release, go to work in normal factories and offices during the day and return to the hostel in the evening.
Unfortunately, there is reason to suppose that the scheme is not working as well as it might in all respects, and I refer particularly to what is happening at Win-son Green Prison in Birmingham. I am told that security at the prerelease hostel there is virtually nil.
After men return to the hostel, as they must, they are allowed to go out again during the evening but must be back by 10.30 p.m. After that, the hostel is locked,


but there is only one warder, and I understand that the pre-release prisoners are free to open a window and get out, with, I am afraid, often disastrous results.
I cite the case of Roy Abdul Kelly who was well known as a man who always carried and used a knife. He got out after 10.30 one evening, stole a car, got drunk and broke into four houses. People were at home in two of the houses and he held them at knife-point and terrorised them. One couple had an 18-year-old daughter whom Kelly tried to rape at knife-point. Kelly and the girl were both cut in the struggle, but he returned to the safety of the pre-release hostel.
When the police were investigating the crime, they checked the Criminal Records Office because the crime had the hallmarks of certain criminals, notably Kelly. However, the police thought that Kelly could not have been guilty and he was struck off the list because he was still in prison at the time of the offence.
It is a tragedy that this man later fled to Bath and, again using a knife, broke into a house and raped and stabbed to death a woman of 78. He was tried for that crime and is in prison today, but during the course of the trial he asked for 34 other cases of burglary to be taken into consideration, all of which were carried out while he was on pre-release.
This man had a long prison record and was known to be a knife man—indeed, he claimed that a knife was the tool of his trade. He was known as a violent man and a drunkard. One must ask why he was allowed on pre-release at all.
However, the Kelly case is not the only cause for concern by any means. Two men are awaiting trial at Warwick Crown Court accused of robbery with violence while on prerelease. One is awaiting trial at Stafford Crown Court but has unfortunately disappeared into the wide blue yonder and it is anyone's guess whether he will turn up. Two pre-release prisoners murdered a policeman in Reading some time ago. I have no wish to end the pre-release scheme, but I do wish it to be operated in such a way as to protect the public.
The Bill provides that prisoners should be selected for pre-release hostels with more care. I know that in some places

they are selected with care, but it is clear that in many other places they are not. Secondly, I wish to make the hostels secure.
Pre-release hostels were and are meant to be halfway houses and not places which prisoners are totally free to leave at any time. The men are still serving sentences while they are there. They are free to go to their jobs during the day but should not be free to commit crimes at night. My Bill would not harm the more trustworthy pre-release men because they do not abuse the scheme at present. It could do no harm to them if hostels were more secure.
It may be said that as a man would be free soon anyway, we should not worry about making hostels more secure, but surely a prisoner who had just been released would be more careful and anxious not to commit another crime that would lead to another gaol term. However, these men in pre-release hostels are protected by the best alibi—"I could not have committed the crime, your honour, because I was in prison at the time".
This is a small Bill, but I think that it is necessary on three counts: first, to protect the public; secondly, to prevent the pre-release system from falling into disrepute; and, thirdly, because, peculiarly enough, the Home Secretary apparently has no such powers as I seek for him. I think that he should have such powers. My Bill asks that these powers be made available to him.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Keith Stainton, Mr. Antony Buck, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Reginald Eyre, Mr. T. H. H. Skeet, Mr. R. Bonner Pink and Mr. Andrew Mackay.

PRE-RELEASE HOSTELS FOR PRISONERS

Mrs. Jill Knight accordingly presented a Bill to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations with regard to prerelease hostels; and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29th April and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

SPORT AND RECREATION

7.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation (Command Paper No. 6200).
Since this White Paper was circulated, there have been a number of requests to have a debate upon it. I am glad that we have been able to find time for this debate, although the time has been somewhat eroded today. The Government were anxious to have as much discussion as possible about this document, as I think this is the first time in the history of this country—certainly in the history of sport—that any White Paper on the subject has been produced.
Since the Government came into office they have tried to raise the whole philosophy, purpose and social contribution of sport. This White Paper therefore set out to examine the changes that we found to be necessary in the structure of the Sports Council and in the arrangements for the development of sport to create a philosophy about leisure provision.
The White Paper, in its conclusion, states that
The Government believe that sport and recreation provide enormous benefits for the individual in society, and recognise the part which they can play in the enhancement of personality. The social stresses on many young people today are enormous, especially in the big cities. If we delay too long in tackling the causes of these stresses constructively, the problems which arise from them will be magnified, and the cost of dealing with their results greatly increased. … Where the community neglects its responsibilities for providing the individual with opportunities and choice in the provision of sports and recreational facilities, it will rarely escape the long-term consequences of this neglect. When life becomes meaningful for the individual then the whole community is enriched.
Since we wrote that passage in the White Paper, everything that has happened has borne out the truth of that philosophy and policy.
I regret that part of my speech this evening will deal with the continuing problems of the misuse of leisure, and boredom. I have no doubt that that will properly attract a great deal of attention in the media. However, it is important

at the outset to explain that we wish to provide healthy opportunities for the majority of citizens to enjoy sport, to find fun in games, a delight in the countryside and happiness in their leisure time.
I should like to give a brief progress report to the House, which I shall attempt to condense because I note that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
As we said in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, Ministers concerned with all the agencies in the countryside catering for recreation and sport now meet regularly under my chairmanship. This has proved to be an extremely helpful way of co-ordinating policy.
Likewise, and probably even more valuable, all the agencies meet under my chairmanship twice a year. It might be worth mentioning those agencies to demonstrate the breadth of interest in the whole question of leisure, sport and recreational provision. They are the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Sports Council, the National Water Council, the British Waterways Board, the Forestry Commission and the English Tourist Board.
Since we started those meetings, I thought it right to invite the local authority associations to attend as and when necessary. Their presence has added a new dimension and has helped to co-ordinate thinking between local and central Government. As a result, we have had an extensive series of discussions—I shall not give the House the details because of their length—covering almost every aspect of the problems about which I have been talking.
We have also changed the composition of the Sports Council. Including the chairman and vice-chairman, the membership was increased from 27 to 32 last year. Therefore, as many interests as possible are now represented upon it. In particular—I appreciate this, especially as a former chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation, albeit for a short period—it has now been possible to agree that the CCPR should have roughly 25 per cent. of the membership. At present, seven members represent the governing bodies of sport as of right. I do not distinguish between their nominations, but I feel it right to have on the


Sports Council the nominations of the collective governing bodies of sport. That move has been much appreciated by the CCPR and by all the governing bodies in this country.
In addition, I have now arranged that two representatives of local authorities should be appointed to the Sports Council. This is of considerable importance, as the local authorities are major providers of sports facilities.
These changes in the Sports Council membership are working very well and improving the harmonious relationships that we want to see between the Sports Council, the governing bodies of sport and local and central Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having set up the independent Sports Council, I welcome in general what the Minister has done. But is any amendment of the charter required to achieve the extension of membership?

Mr. Howell: A slight amendment of the charter was necessary. It has in fact been carried out. Otherwise, these arrangements would not be operational. I am not sure whether the amendment of the charter that we have made deals with the scope of the membership. I shall deal with that point when I have had an opportunity of checking it.

Mr. Roy Hughes: In making these appointments, does my right hon. Friend take into consideration nominations from the trade unions? One feels that they have a useful part to play on these bodies.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend can rest assured that although no organisation can make nominations as of right, the need to involve both sides of industry in the work of the Sports Council is always uppermost in my mind and has some effect on the appointments that I make.
The greatest significant change in the machinery and structure is in the establishment of the new regional councils for sport and recreation. There was a great deal of apprehension when I announced that the old regional sports councils that had been so outstandingly successful for 10 or 12 years were to be reformed in this wider setting. It seemed that in the regional context it was nonsense to have

sport, recreation, access to the countryside and all these matters in separate watertight compartments.
If we were planning for leisure as a whole, which is the philosophy of the White Paper, it was essential that we brought all those matters together in the regions. Additional staff have been found for the Countryside Commission, which had not previously had a regional organisation, so that they can play their full part in the new regional councils, and I am glad to say that these are working well. I have visited almost all of them. There is only one that I have not visited, but I shall do so soon. I can report to the House that these councils have been well established and are working well, and no doubt they will make a significant contribution to the development of sport and recreation and leisure facilities.
I have told the regional councils that their first priority is to get on with the development of a regional strategy, to look 20 years ahead if necessary. I am glad to say that my Department has taken the lead in the preparation of guidelines and that work on the development of a regional strategy is under way.
I turn now to the question of areas of special need and the inner cities. Since this was specifically highlighted in the White Paper when it was published, we accepted the fact of life that the greatest stresses and strains are to be found in the urban conurbations. The greatest social problems are to be found in the cities and towns. Therefore, it was self-evdently the right things to do to recognise the great contribution that sports provision can make in the inner cities and in areas of social deprivation. I am glad to report again that the Sports Council readily accepted that this ought to be the first priority call upon our resources at this time, even though the economic situation does not allow us to make the expansion in our programme that we all desire.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: What are the resources provided by way of grant to the Sports Council?

Mr. Howell: I should like to deal with that when I reply to the debate.
The White Paper recognised that the first priority for future recreation provision must be to concentrate attention


upon the inner cities and other areas of social stress. I am glad to report that the Sports Council unhesitatingly agreed with that policy and in 1976–77 allocated more than £700,000 in grant to schemes in these areas. The number of projects involved is 126, and he Sports Council intends to make similar provision in future years.
I am glad to say, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Sports Council are giving similar priority to this matter and have allocated £100,000 this year out of their budget, again for sponsoring schemes in situations of urban stress.
There can be no doubt that sport and recreation can play a greater part than almost any other programme in helping to tackle the problems of urban deprivation. The statement earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment offers new possibilities for the encouragement of programmes and facilities in the inner areas of our major cities.
When programmes to utilise the additional resources now being made available by the Government are drawn up, we must ensure that the vital social dimension represented by sport and recreation is fully taken into account. The Sports Council is, therefore, asking each of the appropriate regional councils for sport and recreation immediately to enter into discussions with the local authorities and to offer their services in order to ensure that sport and recreational provision is an integral part of the new partnership arrangements between central and local government.
The Government's new approach to the inner cities comes at a time when we are also engaged on some new thinking about our approach to recreation policy itself. This week I have received the results of two important studies on leisure provision, which I shall be circulating more widely and discussing with the Government agencies and local authority associations. The first, which was carried out by a research worker in my Department, was to find out more about the kinds of activities and policies which could help to increase the recreational opportunities of those living in the inner

cities, especially those who are socially, economically or physically disadvantaged. The second, sponsored by this Department, the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish and Welsh Offices, is on action-research experiments in leisure activities in four selected areas—Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Clwyd and Dunbarton. Although the experiments went wider than the inner city areas, they had a substantial inner city content.
My first impression is that these studies show strikingly similar results. The lessons to be learned from them seem to me to be these: first, the policy of providing facilities for the benefit of the "whole community" has tended to work to the disadvantage of the deprived. Sports centres, for example, were found to be catering mainly for the middle classes. I suspect that such a tendency is liable to be aggravated by price increases. Only yesterday I was told that in one authority in the North-West recent price increases had led to a fall of 12 per cent. in users of facilities in general. On some facilities the loss was as great as 37 per cent. We cannot afford to price out of these facilities the very people we need to attract to them.
Secondly, we should make a virtue out of necessity of the present economic constraints and made sure that we concentrate not only on less ambitious facilities but also on making better use of a whole range of under-user resources. Our parks, our schools, our church halls are all prime examples. For many years there has been no new thinking about the rôle of parks, yet they are one of our most precious assets and ought to be fully utilised and taken up. The old straitjacket of municipal thinking and municipal provision should be rethought and widened. Yesterday I discussed with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities the contribution that land owned by public utilities could make towards meeting recreational needs. They will have my full support in their efforts to persuade the utilities concerned to make more non-operational land available.
Thirdly, we must realise that mere provision of facilities is not enough. There is great potential for self-help in the community and we must have stronger community involvement. Local authorities should see themselves as assisters and


enablers rather than as mere providers. They must adopt a more flexible and sensitive approach to local aspirations. The leisure experiments have shown how much can be achieved for very little money with a sympathetic partnership between authorities and the community.
I shall want to discuss with the Government agencies, the local authority associations and others what the next steps should be on these studies. Clearly, I must not pre-empt these discussions. But my own view is that we must first of all subject the studies to the widest possible degree of publicity and debate. For a start, I am asking every regional council for sport and recreation to convene conferences in its region to consider the findings of these studies.
But we need action even more than words. I believe that it is essential that the reappraisal of our attitudes towards leisure provision should lead to a reappraisal of leisure planning itself. I should like to see—and the AMA agrees with me—the recreation and leisure departments of each district authority—which I see as one of the encouraging things, if not the only encouraging thing, that emerged from local government reorganisation—preparing a master plan for leisure in their areas which would ensure that all the physical and human resources in the community were fully and effectively utilised and that the leisure service was seen as a vital part of the social provision of the community.
Much of the social stress, the deprivation, and the boredom that are prevalent in our society manifest themselves in the form of football hooliganism. On this subject I regret that I must make a rather extended statement, but I know that the House would wish me to do so in view of the unfortunate events of recent weeks.
It is very regrettable, but unfortunately true, that the number of disturbing incidents involving sizeable crowds of untrollable football supporters has increased in recent months. As a result, large-scale police operations have become necessary on certain occasions, which is totally unjustified, in order that sporting fixtures can take place. On occasions, whole neighbourhoods and towns have been threatened and damaged, innocent spectators assaulted, the police force extended beyond what is reasonable on a sporting

occasion and, not least—as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I am glad to see is in the Chamber tonight listening to this important statement, will agree—policemen themselves injured in attempting to control such intolerable situations.
Earlier in the season the Glasgow Rangers visit to Aston Villa produced a major confrontation and as a result the Glasgow Rangers club itself has decided not to play further away matches in England for the time being. Within the last few weeks there have been three serious incidents involving so-called supporters of Manchester United. Supporters of other clubs have also been involved in similar types of unacceptable behaviour, though not quite on such a scale as these events.
As for Manchester United's away matches, it is clear that the principal offenders seem to have very little connection at all with Manchester. They travel from all over the country as if on a pilgrimage. We really cannot allow support for a football team to become a cult if it develops to the point of threatening the peace of towns and creates intolerable problems for both police and clubs.
Members of my working party, including representatives of the Football Association and Football League and the Sports Council, discussed this matter with me yesterday, and all of us agreed that in terms of visiting supporters of Manchester United this problem must be reduced immediately to one of manageable size, in the interests of the club itself, its opponents, and the towns in which games are being played.
We noted that the Manchester United Supporters' Club now lists over 150 branches throughout the country. I have here a copy of the club's official notepaper. If hon. Members care to look at it, they will see that branches have sprung up in almost every town in the country. It is something of a tribute to the supporters' club, although I do not for a moment pretend that it will find agreeable what I shall be saying in a few moments.
I pay tribute to the supporters, and particularly to their secretary, Mr. David Smith, who has always co-operated fully with us and who has resented and regretted as bitterly as any one of us in


the House the difficulties any supporters have landed the club into.
We observed, too, from an analysis of the town of origin of offenders on these occasions that very few of them originate in Manchester. The vast majority come from addresses scattered around the country. Apart from the supporters club branches, it is also clear that many unofficial groups are also making similar arrangements for organised travel.
We have therefore decided that, as soon as is practicable, having regard to the fact that arrangements are already being made for the FA cup semi-final, the Football Association and the Football League will ensure that all future Manchester United away matches will be ticket-only occasions. In no circumstances will any tickets be available on the day of the match, and all terrace tickets will be sold exclusively to home club supporters. As for stand seat tickets, it will be for the home club to decide what allocation it can make available for distribution by the Manchester United Football Club.
I am glad to say that Bristol City Football Club has been in touch with me and advised me that it proposes to operate these arrangements at its game on 7th May.
One of the disturbing features in recent games has been the large number of supporters who have arrived for all-ticket matches without being in possession of a ticket. Over 2,000 people turned up at Southampton without a ticket and rampaged round the ground. I am told that last Saturday at Norwich several hundred people arrived without tickets.
The working party believes that this is due to the impression that these people have that they will easily be able to obtain a ticket from touts or other people selling them outside the ground. I have discussed this matter with the Home Secretary and he will consider what practical steps can be taken to end this situation. It will obviously defeat our purpose if people feel that they can get round these arrangements by purchasing tickets in this manner and gaining admision to parts of the terraces where they can create conflict with home supporters.
The Football Association and the Football League have agreed that Manchester United must be told to discourage the recognition of a whole range of supporters' clubs around the country and will be instructed not to make tickets available to such clubs outside Manchester. Likewise, other clubs that are also developing such out of town supporters' clubs—I regret, in one way, that this practice seems to be on the increase—will be discouraged from giving official recognition to them. We are aware that certain matches involving the supporters of other clubs also need to be stringently controlled and during the summer months the working party will consider what other matches require equally stringent control and similar all-ticket arrangements.
I turn to the subject of travel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport shares my view about the rôle that properly supervised travel arrangements can play. My working party and I hope soon to hold a meeting with the representatives of coach operators and British Rail in order further to discuss travel arrangements. We shall stress the view of the working party that it will be quite irresponsible to organise any special travel to all-ticket matches unless the travellers possess a ticket of admission to the match. We shall also make clear our firm view that there should be no alcohol on board coaches or trains carrying supporters. Police reports on recent incidents confirm that sizeable numbers of supporters have been arriving in the home town as early as midnight on the day before the match and thus creating additional problems. We shall therefore reinforce the earlier advice of the working party, which is designed to ensure that supporters at football matches do not arrive in the home town earlier than an hour or so before the kick-off and that arrangments are made for an immediate departure after the match.
The football authorities share my view that penalties for offenders should represent an adequate deterrent. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has proposed a very considerable increase in such penalties in the Criminal Law Bill, which we are due to consider in this House immediately after


Easter. I hope very much that we shall give it a swift passage so that its provisions can be available to the courts as deterrents to such offenders.
Members of the working party are convinced that, in preference to the imposition of large fines, courts should deal with football hooligans in the younger age range—under 17—by ordering them to report to an attendance centre on Saturday afternoons.
There are 60 junior attendance centres for this age group, and most urban areas are served by such a centre. A boy who has been found guilty of an offence for which an adult may be sent to prison may be ordered to attend a centre, normally for an aggregate of between 12 and 24 hours. The usual period of attendance is two hours at any one time, and the great majority of the centres open on a Saturday afternoon. The centres provide a simple punishment by deprivation of leisure time for which I should like to express our appreciation. They are run by police officers in their spare time and normally provide for the boys a combination of physical exercise and some form of lecture or craft instruction.
The centres, of course, take boys found guilty of a large variety of offences and have been used by the courts for this purpose for over 25 years. But if, at the discretion of the court, the attendance centre seems an appropriate disposal, it provides a most useful means of removing a trouble maker from the scene on a Saturday afternoon.
I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is at present considering whether any improvement can be made in the system.
I know that will be very welcome to the football authorities. I now turn to the question of the safety of sports grounds. The Safety of Sports Grounds Act becomes operative in all First Division grounds in England and Scotland, and in certain other important grounds, at the beginning of next season. Local authorities have the responsibility of issuing general safety certificates to these grounds and I take this opportunity of drawing their attention to the two most vital requirements of my working party that have been circulated to the football clubs and the local authorities concerned.
These are as follows: first, that there must be effective means of segregating

rival supporters on the terraces of all grounds. In this respect the numbers of tickets which the home team can make available to the visitors in any match should be based on the ability to create separate sections with their own entrance and exits; secondly, that some form of protection is available to ensure that there is no encroachment on to the pitch, except for reasons of safety and at the discretion of the police.
Football clubs that have made application for certificates are very strongly advised to ensure that these requirements can be met. I expect local authorities to bear them in mind in considering applications by clubs, and to impose conditions—such as on ground capacity—where the requirements are not met.
As the House will know, I reported in an earlier debate that to meet the cost of dealing with the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, the Football Ground Improvement Trust was established, with the generous support of the pools promoters. It is funded by a levy on "Spot-the-Ball" competitions and will soon be providing financial assistance to clubs to improve their grounds. The trust fund's capital account now stands at £1·37 million and clubs have been asked to put in bids for assistance by 28th April. The bids will be based on estimates for the work local authorities will require to be done before a general safety certificate can be issued, and their bids will be considered during May.
Many of the remedial measures that I have described will inevitably impose restrictions upon many thousands of genuine football supporters, particularly in Manchester. This is especially regrettable, because of the fine reputation of the Manchester United club, for its positive football, which contributes greatly to the progress of British soccer, and, not least, for its well-deserved reputation as a club for good sportsmanship. However, I know that most of its supporters will understand how important it is in the long-term interest of their own club and for its supporters personally, that we eliminate these disorders and make the support of our national sport the pleasure that it ought to be.
Football clubs might also suffer some financial disadvantage, but again my working party believes that this is a price that must be paid in order to overcome


the problem. On the other hand, we believe that, if the sporting public feel that they can once more attend these matches without fear for their own safety, this might well bring back to football many people who are undoubtedly staying away at the moment.
I am particularly grateful to the Football Association and the Football League for their ready co-operation and for their sense of realism, and their determination to overcome this menace. I shall be meeting members of the working party again shortly, and certainly during the summer, to review these arrangements in time for the new season. At the same time, we shall consider carefully whether these exceptional measures should be extended to other clubs.
Moving on to more constructive aspects, I should like to say, with regard to leisure in the countryside, that the Department and the agencies understand the strategic importance of developing access to the countryside and developing opportunities for camping and caravanning. With the increased leisure time now available to the people of this country and the increased mobility which motorways and ownership of motor cars now provide, the Department and the agencies appreciate that their rôle in the provision and development of a leisure policy is even more essential than it has been in the past.
The Countryside Commission is increasingly turning its attention to the need for recreation facilities, especially on the edge of the great towns. Its objective is to stop the decline in the quality of the land and to improve the landscape quality by proper management and investment, to develop it for recreation purposes or, if possible, to make better use of the land for agriculture.
During 1975–76, the commission was involved in 34 urban fringe projects, including help to public bodies in the purchase of land, improving access, providing car parks linked with bridle paths and footpath systems, and the provision of well-designed information boards. In that year, the commission spent 25 per cent. of all its grant aid on such schemes and will continue to give them the importance they deserve.
There has recently been a great deal of controversy on the subject of the Exmoor National Park. I am greatly concerned about the disputes there over the use of moorland. Normally, I would expect the National Park Administration, with the assistance of the Countryside Commission, to handle this, but I recognise that this is a difficult problem, where there are deeply-held convictions by all interests, especially those who livehihood is concerned and who need to be able to work together in a spirit of good will. The success of national parks depends on the co-operation of all involved.
What is now needed is a cool and objective appraisal of both the present and potential situation and of the courses of action that are open to the relevant public authorities in order to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the various national and local interests involved. For this reason, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment readily agreed to the request of the Exmoor National Park Committee for a study of the question of land use on Exmoor.
I can now inform the House that Lord Porchester has agreed to carry out this study. I am sure that he is a man to whom everyone can talk and who can weigh the various considerations with perception and balance. He has a remarkably wide practical experience covering all the various aspects of the problem. He is a working farmer and a retiring Chairman of the Hampshire County Council. He formerly served on the Nature Conservancy Council and was Chairman of the South-East Economic Planning Council, as well as being associated with the New Forest.

Mr. Spriggs: We do not want to know about all these qualifications.

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend may not, but the people in Exmoor do. It is very important, therefore, if my hon. Friend does not mind, that I should complete this very short announcement.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: It is another working party, anyway.

Mr. Howell: It is not. It is a one-man study. The hon. Gentleman, as usual, is very wide of the mark.

Mr. Spriggs: May I ask your advice on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Some of us have waited all day for the sports debate, only to find it starting at 7.42 pm, when my right hon. Friend rose at the Dispatch Box. He is still speaking. May we appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an extension of time? Without this, we shall have to appeal for an adjournment so that we can continue this debate on another day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). The Chair has no power in this respect.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry, and I apologise to my hon. Friend if he feels that he may be excluded. I hope that he will not. But he was the first hon. Member to try to interrupt me when my speech started.
I am indeed grateful to Lord Porchester. I think that when he produces his report the whole House will appreciate it. If the House has been keeping itself apprised of the dispute in Somerset it will know that these are very real and important issues to the people involved, and have to be settled in a manner satisfactory to both agriculturalists and environmentalists.
Having made my statements, which contain some news, I shall be very happy indeed to reply to other matters raised in the debate when my hon. Friends have had the opportunity to put their points, and particularly to record the success of the new centres of sporting excellence. They are of considerable importance, but because I wish to respond to the wishes of my hon. Friends I shall not deal with them in my comments now.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I share the view of the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and hope that the Lord President, to whom we are grateful for giving time for this debate, will give further time after the Easter Recess. Obviously a debate which is truncated to two hours 20 minutes, after we have been waiting 18 months for it, is singularly disappointing.
I would straight away thank the Minister for what he said. I totally support his view on the grave problem of football

hooliganism and wish him success in the immediate measures that he has taken. I know that we are only taking note of the White Paper. Perhaps the Government are out of touch with approving White Papers, but this subject is non-controversial and there is certainly no question of dividing the House on it.
On reflection the Minister might wish that he had not made the rather naughty statement at Bournemouth that this House had been showing no enthusiasm for a debate. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Supply Days are for controversial issues. I have been asking for a debate on sport for a long time. The Minister should not try to mislead sports conferences, which are perhaps not as well versed as we are with procedures in this House.
The whole of sport has been bedevilled and held back by inflation. Grants have eroded away. Costs have escalated whether in salaries, incidentals or capital costs. Last week's grants to the sports councils, with inflation running at 15 per cent. and over, did not measure up to anywhere near the figure they required. There is obviously no money for expansion and not enough to keep the present rate of expenditure in hand. In fact, there has been a decrease in real terms.
I join many people in sport in feeling a grave concern at this trend. I accept that there must be a restriction in the present economic climate but not disproportionate cuts. Many people will feel that the dice is at present weighted against sport. It would be an important help if the Minister could look forward rather further with regard to the capital expenditure of the Sports Council so that it can work on a rolling programme for perhaps three years ahead. This has been brought out clearly in one or two Press comments recently.
The Minister should not get too excited about the £11·5 million in grants for the Sports Council in the coming year. But when we bear in mind that the National Enterprise Board spends about £11 million every fortnight, and that the shipbuilding nationalisation will cost about £500 million, the Government must weigh their judgment and priorities better with regard to the expenditure of taxpayers' money.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the last Sports Council report, in its review of sport in 1969 said:
In times of economic stringency it would be very easy for central and local government to ignore or postpone the need for action. But failure to plan today will mean frustration tomorrow.
I do not think that sport has had the opportunity over the last two or three years to plan ahead, in view of the restrictions that it has faced. In an endeavour to be brief, I shall not quote the comments on pages 6 and 7 of the Sports Council report, which clearly indicate that over the last two or three years there has been a lack of resources devoted to sport. Page 7 of the report states that the sports councils in the four countries, rather than being allocated £15 million, should have about £30 million if the Sports Council programme is to be carried out to its own satisfaction.
We shall have to return to previous levels to stimulate private investment in sport. In a more enlightened tax system we must look at the possibilities of revising the tax position so that corporations and companies are positively encouraged to give support to sport and recreation. The State should not be the only patron of sporting endeavour.
Because of his lengthy statement of hooliganism, the Minister probably has had to cut out a significant portion of his speech. I am sure that he would have wanted to pay tribute to the sponsors who have such an important influence on sport today. I do not think that industry is getting sufficient thanks for what it is doing.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is putting up a fight on behalf of tobacco sponsorship. I have had letters from him. I cannot see why the Secretary of State for Social Services takes such a dogmatic line. Out of the £16 million of sports sponsorship, £5 million comes from tobacco companies. Were we to lose that, where would the money then come from? Let us stop this persecution of the tobacco companies and let the people of this country make their own judgment whether to smoke cigarettes. In this context, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to see that the guidelines used by the BBC are redrafted because there are so many ano-

malies in relation to sponsorship that it perhaps reduces the effectiveness of the help that we are getting from industry.
Part of the right hon. Gentleman's strategy was based on the hope that there would be financial benefits from the interim report of the Royal Commission. Unforunately, the Royal Commission recommended nothing and there has been an equal blank in relation to the Government's unfortunate attitude to lotteries. I do not think that sport will get back from lotteries the money which would be available had the Government taken a different line when the Lotteries Act was going through this House.
The CCPR has been most active with regard to taxation. All praise to Mrs. Glen Haig for her booklet on tax. The right hon. Gentleman and I, representing the all-party sports group, have been to the Treasury and discussed the problem of taxation on sport. I was most disappointed that the Budget had no impact at all except possibly on the gifted sportsman, although we are entering into the arena of an accountant's nightmare if there is to be any benefit from that. The the VAT limit of £5,000 should have been raised to £10,000 in order to give the small sports club more breathing space and to cut out all the red tape and work which it has to go through when filling in forms. But nothing happened.
We felt that there should have been a flat rate which would cut out the 12½ per cent. VAT rate altogether. I wonder how on earth the right hon. Gentleman ever got involved in accepting the 25 per cent. VAT rate two years ago which has had such a catastrophic effect on boats, gliding and light aviation.
There has been a marginal improvement with regard to corporation tax. I had hoped that the Government would consider a small VAT concession, through the Customs and Excise, for the raising of bloodstock.
I now turn to the main theme of the debate, which would have been the White Paper itself had we not had an important diversion. As the Minister said, it is the first White Paper on the subject that we have had. But, without an improvement in resources, much of it will become a non-event. It is unusual for a Labour Government to embrace a House of Lords report with such enthusiasm and speed. There is no doubt that the


three volumes make interesting reading and contain excellent evidence.
The conclusions of the report are weighted too heavily towards the environment. Of course we must co-ordinate and co-operate, and the environment must play an important part in the future of Britain. But in the context of the White Paper, the environment has too great an influence. That will dilute the importance of sport and physical recreation as defined in the Royal Charter of the Sports Council. The theme of leisure is too strong and has preference in the Minister's thinking. It is noticeable that neither the Scottish nor Welsh sports councils are mentioned often in the White Paper.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). The White Paper reaffirms the Conservative Party's policy to set an Executive Sports Council, chaired by Sir Robin Brook. I pay tribute to former chairman, Sir Roger Bannister, and Mr. Laurence Liddell of the Scottish Sports council.
I believe in the concept of the existing sports councils. The Minister should stand back, set the climate for sport and fight battles within Government. But he should not try to run the councils. The chairmen are capable of doing that for themselves, with the welcome and wise guidance that they receive from the CCPR.
While we are talking of sports councils, I should like to discuss Northern Ireland. That is a part of the United Kingdom that deserves all the help that we can give. We have excellent administrators in Belfast in Don Sanders, the chairman, and George Glasgow. Sports in Northern Ireland has suffered, but the clubs are resilient and are achieving success. I have visited the sports council there. I have seen sports centres, including the Mary Peters track. However, there are special problems in Northern Ireland. People have long evenings to fill.
We should continue to encourage large indoor centres in Northern Ireland because they are more suitable than a multiplicity of small community centres and parish halls. I was sorry to hear of the abandonment of sports centres in Belfast, Ballymena, Bangor and Larne. I hope that the Government will look again at that.
Northern Ireland is the only country in which there is a limit of £30,000 to voluntary sports clubs over a five-year period. That encourages small centres when large ones are needed. Why are golf courses not eligible for grants in Northern Ireland. What has happened to the youth programme? Why has it not moved forward with enthusiasm? I say "Weil done" to the Northern Ireland Sports Council. We are all behind it in its efforts to provide sports facilities.
I turn to the White Paper. I agree with the Minister about the good work of the Water Space Amenity Commission and the other bodies that he mentioned. In paragraph 32 of the White Paper, rating, which is discretionary at present is mentioned. The Minister leaves it that way, and local authorities are able to make up their own minds.
We must put a bit more enthusiasm into the local authorities. Rate relief should be mandatory where a club makes its facilities genuinely available to the public—I underline the word genuinely—because this is reducing a capital charge that the local authority might have to pay if it provided the services itself.
I accept only too well, as does the Minister, the problems facing local authorities in relation to cost, particularly on things like swimming pools, where the escalation of costs has been dramatic and inflation has hit sport very hard.
The major decision in the White Paper relates to the regional councils of sport and recreation, which are advisory, not executive councils. I believe that the Government came to this decision too quickly. The Sports Council had been in operation for less than three years, and we should have allowed it longer to settle down before having another upheaval. But now that the Minister has made this decision we must accept it. I do not want to see another upheaval when we have another change of Government.
However, I keep before me the possibility of making some changes in personnel because I think that the Minister takes too much credit for the fact that they are settling down well. That is happening because sports people are always willing to try to be helpful. It is not natural for them to grumble and create difficulties. They have made a tremendous effort to make the new scheme work, although I think that the scheme is


weighted too much toward the environment and has a reduced emphasis on sport. Some harmonisation could be developed with the Countryside Commission.
I am very worried about the composition proposed under Circular 47/76. The Minister read out the authorities involved in the new regional councils, including the British Waterways Board, the British Tourist Board, the National Farmers' Union, the Forestry Commission, National Parks and conservation societies, and local authorities which will play a major part. Out of an average council of 125, which is fairly large, half are local authority representatives, one-quarter come from statutory bodies and only about one-eighth are from sport. That plays down the importance of sport far too much when compared with the original charter of the Sports Council. The worry is that when money is available, they are to be serviced by the Countryside Commission. I hope that the Minister will comment on how this is settling down.
We hear about the conflict between the staff of the Countryside Commission, who are civil servants, and the Sports Council, whose officials are not civil servants. Obviously there would be a certain increase in the staff of the Countryside Commission, and therefore in the number of civil servants, if they are to do their job properly. I am worried to hear that they intend to have separate offices in the regions for sport and the Countryside Commission. This surely cannot help co-operation.
I apologise to hon. Members for going fairly fast because of the lack of time. I come now to the subject of joint use, which is very important and a very significant part of the debate. I have been an advocate for joint use for a long time and I am glad that The Sunday Times has taken this up and shown how important it can be. I saw the very best example of this at Torfan in South Wales, which is the greatest credit to all concerned. In these times of shortage of resources it makes economic sense to encourage joint use at an economic price.
I was concerned to hear the Minister tell us about the increases in costs. We have to accept that as a fact. When there

is fall-off because of the high cost we must learn to face that factor in the future. I should like to see the Government and district councils putting much greater pressure on education authorities to ensure more joint use of facilities. I know that there is reluctance on the part of some headmasters and janitors towards joint use, but this must be changed. I was most disappointed at the attitude taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. She manifestly requires more enthusiasm and some realism towards sport. It seems that complacency is rife in the Department of Education and Science.
We have certainly seen how joint use can be operated in the Services. Sir James Wilson, when he took me around Aldershot, was able to show me successful joint provision in the Services, and all credit to them for that, and to Bob Campbell's campaign in The Sunday Times to get this moving. So we must have no more lip service, but action, particularly in our present difficult economic climate.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned progress in the deprived urban areas. I was pleased to hear of the money that is available, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that the rural areas are equally deprived in terms of sport, particularly now that transport is becoming so expensive.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage local authorities in deprived areas to rent to developers land which is presently not being used—that is, to developers who are prepared to put up sports centres but have been unable to purchase land in a locality.
We would all want to put on record our appreciation of the work done by those who help the disabled in sport, at Stoke Mandeville and elsewhere. I must mention also the great success we had in the Olympics at Montreal where the disabled were competing.
I was glad that the Minister mentioned safety at sports grounds and the progress that is being made on that. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, I am concerned that the proposed fee of £500 is rather higher than we expected when the Bill was going through Parliament. I urge the Minister to bear in mind the need for flexibility. I hope that


the officials will spend their time thinking of how to improve crowd control rather than of nit-picking technicalities about the green code.
Towards the end of his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to the provision of separate areas for the different supporters. I hope the intention here is for football only, because I believe that such segregation could be both unnecessary and difficult at international rugby grounds.
The Minister made a major statement on hooliganism, and I agree with him in it. Ticket-only admission certainly is an improvement, and I am glad that he is considering strict control of travel arrangements. That is one factor which must be enforced. I am glad that he is following up what has been happening in Scotland for some time in providing that alcohol may not be taken aboard buses. I believe that that is one of the roots to the problem. Like his Scottish counterparts, the Minister has had various committees considering these matters, and I hope that by the time next season begins they will have reported and that action will have been taken.
We must not tolerate the battles which at present go on inside and outside football grounds. I want to see a clear definition of the rôle of parents. Here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds reminds me, we come up against the problem of the shortage of money for paying police overtime for some of this work. If necessary to help the police we must change the law as the Home Secretary is already doing in the Criminal Law Bill. I hope that the Government may even consider strengthening the passages relating to hooliganism, because we must shock these hooligans into their senses. I am glad that the provisions will include swingeing detention for those who do not behave responsibly.
What is happening at Hampden Park is a most important topic in Scotland. The Government must give a commitment here, even if it is for two or three years ahead, because it will take that long to plan. Surely the Government do not envisage that we shall be in conditions of economic stringency for ever more. If the work of the Hampden Park working party was given a shot in the arm by the Minister, and if he was able to get

the local authorities, the Football Association and Football League at Queen's Park to join together, we should make much faster progress. Hampden Park will have an awful struggle with its safety standards. I believe that it would be a tremendous boost to the game in Scotland if we knew that in two or three years the first sod would be turned for improving Hampden Park.
I come briefly now to racing, because it is important in the national context. In this connection, I would use the old Irish saying—"A man who is not confused is not well informed". There are so many able bodies giving so much advice that it is difficult to sift out a conclusion as to where we ought to move in the future. Nevertheless, this sport—indeed, an industry employing 100,000 people—requires assistance.
I am glad that the Levy Board has made extra contributions this season. I hope that the levy for next season is settled very soon. The Royal Commission is working on this for both racing and football pools, and we look forward to the report. But in the meantime I certainly welcome RILC, the Racing Industry Liaison Committee. This could be the basis of the best structure for racing, with control by the Jockey Club and the Levy Board, both of which have proved their effectiveness over the years. If RILC can build up its power and authority, this may be the solution for representation within the industry. I believe that the senior steward and his colleagues are working hard towards this end.
The question we pose tonight is this: Is society doing enough to raise its own quality of life? I think that all of us would say "No". We want to help the volunteers and the governing bodies, and we want to promote the base of the pyramid from which all sporting excellence must come, from the point of view of both competition and pure enjoyment. But the Government must set the climate, and the Sports Council, with dynamic leadership, must use its resources with skill and guide the local authorities forward. The local authorities are the biggest spenders, and we have to take them in the right direction.
There is too much muddled thinking in sport. We must clear the decks of red tape and inflation, and give Britain


the opportunity which it not only wants but deserves.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): As hon. Members know, the debate must finish at 10 o'clock. I understand that the winding-up speeches are due to begin at 9.30 p.m. Ten hon. Members still wish to take part in the debate, and they are all present in the Chamber. May I appeal for a sporting attitude among hon. Members? If each takes roughly four or five minutes all may be accommodated.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Tom Pendry: I hope to respond to your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have already discarded three-quarters of my speech, hon. Members will be pleased to know, and if I am even more disjointed than usual, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
This debate is important. I believe that the White Paper goes some way towards rationalising the sport and recreation bodies in this country, which cannot be a bad thing. But I regret that it is not 18 but 20 months since the White Paper was published. All of us are somewhat to blame here. It tends to show the importance that we in this House attach to sport and recreation. I exonerate my right hon. Friend the Minister from that, because I think that no hon. Member in two decades has done more than he has to raise the level of debate on sport both in the House and the country. At the same time, the point is there for us to grasp.
It is inevitable, and regrettable, that the debate will centre on football hooliganism. I suppose that, as a greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I should say something on the subject, but I shall be brief. It is a pity, because we shall miss some of the more exciting prospects that the White Paper holds out for sport. Perhaps we can get the Leader of the House to give us another debate some other time. I certainly hope so.
I go along with everything my right hon. Friend has said about football supporters. I am sure that the officials of Manchester United also would agree with what he said. I am pleased that he paid tribute to the club officials, because they are more anxious than anyone to get over

the problem. It is so embarrassing to them that a minority of so-called supporters are causing so much distress to that great club.
I believe—and this is my central theme—that there is a decided correlation between vandalism and hooliganism, on the one hand, and lack of sporting and recreational facilities, on the other. I agree with the comments about the kind of pressure that is described on page 19 of the White Paper. Surely there must be a relationship between the fact that in Liverpool about £140,000 a year is spent on repairing damage done by vandals, and the fact that that city has no all-purpose sporting facility. There is a distinct correlation. This is not the kind of evidence that we have in any great depth, although a number of indicators point in that direction.
On the housing estate surrounding the Pontypool leisure centre the incidence of vandalism has taken a nose dive. As a result of the new opportunities that the leisure centre has given to youths, there is less vandalism in the streets. When one considers the cost of keeping a youth in a detention centre and of the police and court time—it is estimated that it costs £5,000 a year to keep a youth in detention—surely the relationship between vandalism and the lack of sporting facilities is worthy of closer scrutiny than it has received up to now.
From January of this year, as a result of a Home Office directive, we shall have more accurate statistical pictures from the police authorities and therefore we shall have more to go on. I believe that my right hon. Friend, together with the Home Secretary, should take a closer look in this direction. In some areas the police have gone on record as saying that as a result of organised sport, hooliganism and vandalism have been contained.
Hon. Members who have visited Madrid, Barcelona, Lisbon, and some Iron Curtain countries will testify that many of the great football clubs in those places do more than promote football, they encompass within their cities sporting organisations of a kind which engender a great deal of loyalty to that particular club. This should be looked at in this country. If my right hon. Friend joins the queue with the Secretary


of State for the Environment and tries to get some of the £1,000 million for inner cities he should consider using some of it to find out the reasons why there are obstacles to the creation of this kind of system in Britain. I believe that many technical problems have been thrown up by the Football League. Some of the best football clubs resent very much that their stadia should be used for more than a few hours on Saturday afternoon. These stadia must be some of the most under-used capital assets in the whole country.
This matter should be looked at, even at the risk of offending some hon. Members who do not like committees of inquiry. I hope that the Government will consider setting up, under the Sports Council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under Lord Porchester?"]—no not under Lord Porchester—a committee of inquiry including representatives from the Home Office, the Football League, football clubs, local authorities and even one or two hon. Members. This committee could then see what problems exist and whether they can be overcome. This could be a pilot scheme initially indicating the direction in which we should move.
I welcome very much the moneys that are now going to areas of special need. I am happy to say that in the North-West this has already started. We can see there some great movements forward in this regard. However, I believe that we must look very closely at the good local authorities and at the recalcitrant, lazy authorities. I looked through the list today and I found that Liverpool, which I have already accepted has a special need, has about 64 per cent. of the money that has gone to the North-West, and that Greater Manchester, which has equal need, has rather less, about 28 per cent.
I believe that the sports councils in those areas must get to those less alert authorities to see that they get their fair share of the money that is available. It is largely their fault, but it is nevertheless something that regional councils ought to be getting on top of.
With those very few words—hurriedly gone through but nevertheless setting the pace—I hope that in welcoming the White Paper we shall give our blessing to the sports councils and the regional

councils and all the others concerned, because they have a very difficult task ahead of them. When the upturn comes, I hope that they will be given much more money to get on with the job.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having occupied for nearly four years the rôle of Minister for Sport. I had hoped this evening to reflect a little on the White Paper as a whole and to make some comments on the philosophical approach that we should make to sport and recreation. But this is not the time, even though it may be the place, to do that. Therefore, I shall try to deal with four points very quickly.
I start with the Minister. He began the whole system of Minister for Sport in this country. He has brought to it enthusiasm and dedication. I am sorry to say that his second innings is less impressive than his first, and I tell him very briefly why that is so.
First, he has been wrong to tinker about with the executive Sports Council. He ought never to have lost Sir Roger Bannister, and he ought to have replaced Sir Roger Bannister, when he unfortunately felt compelled to resign, with another sporting figure of like eminence, with whom the great majority of sporting people in this country could identify. I had agreed with Sir Roger Bannister that as and when the time came that he might feel it right to step down, I would seek to replace him with Colin Cowdrey. That would have been a good appointment.
I have nothing against Robin Brook, who has done an excellent job, but it is important that the head of the Sports Council should be seen by the young people of this country to be a figure of sporting eminence, of standing in sport itself.
Secondly, the Minister has been let down by inflation and the economic failure of his colleagues. I am proud of the fact that when we left office in the year 1974 about £100 million was going to sport, much of it from local authorities, some from private sponsorship and some from our own Government's grants. I am very sorry that because of the mishandling of the economy the amount of real resources available to sport has now been reduced very severely.
My second point—disjointedly—is water. We do not have enough land in this country and we must therefore make better use of our water resources. These can and should be made more easily available for sport. We have one of the longest coastlines, and ample inlets, bays, lakes and rivers. I was fortunate to have been able to put into the Water Act 1973 a statutory duty that water space should be used for sport and leisure. Some progress has been made, but by no means enough. Many of our coastal local authorities ought to do a very much better job in the provision of marinas and small hards, where our people, who have now taken to boats in large numbers, can get on to the water more easily.
My third point concerns racing. I very much agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). Racing is a great sport. It is also a great industry. However, it is in danger of dying through excess taxation.
For every pound that is paid in taxation to the Government, only one-fifteenth is returned to racing. In France, one quarter of every pound taken in taxation is returned to racing and in the United States, for every pound taken by the Government from racing about 75 pence is returned. When one takes that into account, the lack of prize money and the impact of VAT—which in this country is disgracefully high on the racing industry—the conclusion is inescapable—taxation, particularly capital taxation, could easily kill this wonderful industry. The Minister ought—I am sure he is trying—to press the Treasury much more strongly to give racing some exemption from VAT, at least to equalise the odds between this country and France.
My last point is about football hooliganism. That is a problem with which I, too, had to struggle. I did not succeed, any more than the present Minister has succeeded. It is an intractable problem. I disagree with the hon. Member who suggested that if there were plenty of facilities there would not be any hooliganism. I lived in California for many years. The facilities there are wonderful, but they have far more violence and hooliganism than we do. The deprived child is not always the depraved child. The matter is much more complicated.
The House should agree with the Minister tonight that what has been happening on our football grounds is an affront to the sporting ideal, a disgrace to the game of football and a blot on the reputation of this country in the world. The message ought to go out from the House that we will not put up with this. It must be stopped. There is not time to deal with all the reasons why there is football hooliganism, but bad examples on the field by players can and do cause bad behaviour on the terraces. There is a connection.
Alcohol drunk by the young who are not used to it is another factor. It has a material effect. Then there is the factor of deliberate exhibitionist gang violence, often involving people who have nothing to do with the team or any connection with the town in question. Exhibitionist gang violence involves one young man daring another to "mix it" with the police or to thump his opponent, and this, too, is a psychological factor in the violence in the stands.
The first responsibility for this must rest with the clubs themselves. I am glad that the Minister has taken the steps that he has and that the Football League and the Football Association have supported him over tickets. But I go one stage further. If there is persistent animal-like behaviour and the terrorising of ordinary people in their homes in the neighbourhood, it may be necessary for the police to close grounds completely for a time. Then there will be no doubt in anyone's mind that the community will not put up with such behaviour.
The clubs are not the whole of the matter. Parents have responsibility, too. It must be right for magistrates, when young people are convicted of really violent offences, increasingly to impose on the parents the obligation to pay severe fines and to accept responsibility for the conduct of their children when they are away from home.
The Minister mentioned the police. The House knows that I have a particular connection with the police. I have seen—as no doubt the Minister has also seen—the bruising and breaking of policemen's limbs and faces when they are thrown into drunken crowds of hooligans. I have been appalled that we should ask disciplined and trained men to go into those melées and come out bleeding and


bruised. I am also sorry to say that because of the public expenditure cuts there is less overtime available, and therefore many policemen on duty at sportsgrounds will have to be taken away from other more important duties that they ought to be carrying out. That is the sad reality in the present budgetary circumstances of many of our police forces.
It is all very well to say that there must be more attendance centres. I am sure that there should be. But we must recognise that some of the young men sent to these centres become heroes to the other members of their gangs. This is true in far too many cases.
More important is punishment. Those that are meted out to football hooligans should be stiff and should last. Above all, they need to be supported by public opinion, by parents and neighbourhoods.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: I greatly deplore, like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the fact that policemen have their limbs broken on sporting occasions. However, I have played against policemen many times and they can dish out a great deal of punishment against their opponents in sporting activities. They are obviously venting some of their pent-up anxieties on their opponents.
I am painfully aware of the financial constraints under which the Government are operating in dealing with sporting matters, but even in the years that were not so lean, our expenditure on sport was derisory and we have treated it, nationally and internationally, far less seriously than our competitors.
I pay tribute to the innate abilities of our sportsmen that enable them to compete as successfully as they do in international events, despite the environment within which they have to train. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for Sport and to the Sports Council for their great work.
I should ideally like to see a vast network of modern stadia and arenas and huge indoor sports halls, international sized swimming pools and first-rate facilities for both major and minor sports. Maybe we ought to start thinking about the future and planning these complexes now. We are taking modest steps in the right direction. Anyone who has played

at the National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace will know what we can do in the provision of sports facilities when we put our minds and our money to it.
As a West Midlands Member, I regret that Sandwell was not able to take up the offer to provide a similar complex in the West Midlands. However, it is not just Sandwell's responsibility; the provision of such facilities is the responsibility of every authority in the West Midlands, and I hope that there will be some reconsideration of this matter so that facilities such as are available in some other fortunate areas can be made available in our area.
I commend the Sport Council's publication dealing with converted buildings. Many such buildings are available, including railway stations, drill halls, factries, warehouses and hangars. They could be converted to provide new sports facilities that would not cost a great deal. If we are looking around for facilities that could be extended and modernised, perhaps local authorities could vastly improve their facilities in this way at a fairly low cost. Another excellent Sports Council publication deals with low cost sports halls. One does not need vast and and expensive complexes. Modern technology can produce competent centres that are not extravagances.
My area is not in the forefront of many policies, but we have a great contribution to make in showing other people how to use facilities for recreational and educational purposes simultaneously. We have in Walsall some centres that are the envy of the rest of the country.
I was at an international badminton match last week at the Allumwell centre. This magnificent educational and recreational complex was built in 1968 at a cost of only £60,000 more than the cost of the original school. It includes superb facilities, and I have been told by the director of education that, with inflation, to build a similar complex today would cost about £180,000 more than the cost of providing the school, which is still, in my view, an economic proposition. In our area of Walsall we have five purpose-built community facilities, with more projected. We should not look simply at the economic advantages of dual use but also at the many social advantages that accrue from the provision of such facilities.
More attention should be given to the provision of kickabout areas. I think that one of the best kickabout areas is the Islington Astroturf, but there are less exalted ones to be constructed. Such areas comprise plots of land near but not too near, housing estates, where goal posts are put up and adequate facilities are provided at very limited cost.
I think that we in this House ought to welcome the "Sport for All" campaign. I am, as secretary and goalkeeper, involved with the House of Commons Football Club. Many of its members are unfortunately of middle age or approaching middle age. However, we have shown that we can play competitive sport at not too incompetent a level. Others outside seem to think that once they have passed the age of 30 they should forget about sport. That is not so. Indeed, we have some fine players over 30, though one or two are under that age. Viscount Craigavon is an excellent player who is under that age. Indeed, he is the only reason, in my view, for keeping the House of Lords in its present form—he can play for us. We can show people outside that approaching 40 years of age need not mean that they are finished with sporting activities.
A sport not given much attention in this House is pigeon racing. I applaud British Railways for deciding not to ban the transport of live animals. No final decision, I understand, has yet been made. However, I hope that British Railways will recognise that this is a sport in which hooliganism does not figure, costs the country nothing, and is a vital activity affecting over 250,000 people.
I welcome the White Paper. It provides a framework for expansion. I hope that in time we shall have sporting facilities befitting this nation and its citizens so that we can compete more successfully at international level and derive more pleasure at lower levels of sport. However, it is important to get the base of the sporting pyramid properly constructed. That can be done by a vast extension of dual use facilities that we in Walsall have shown the way. I hope that we shall see those desirable facilities provided in the lifetime of this Government.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I begin by declaring two interests. I am consultant to a well-known sporting company—Dunlop—and to Grovewood Securities, which owns Brands Hatch and other motor racing circuits. I have not discussed this matter with them; there are my own views.
In absolute terms, first-class sporting facilities in this country are totally inadequate. That is one reason why we perform so abysmally at the highest levels in many areas of sport. That is not to gainsay the valiant efforts of people to overcome the odds. I do not wish to undermine the efforts of those who have first-class facilities and make the best possible use of them. However, in absolute terms our sporting facilities are totally inadequate.
The reason is that we do not have the cash. I looked at two Press cuttings commenting on the White Paper which was published 20 months ago. The Guardian refers to
Sport for all—but no more cash.
The Times has an article headed
Cash curb warning in sport White Paper.
It contains a comment by Sir Robin Brook, the Chairman of the Sports Council:
Even in the present economic climate we feel that local authorities should be given the duty of providing adequate recreational facilities sooner rather than later. Sport and recreation should be considered alongside housing and health and not rated as an optional extra—something that is promised when the time is right. The time is now.
The time is right, but it never seems to come. I do not believe that any council will ever rate sport equally alongside housing or health. I cannot see the time being right in the next few years, however much the oil may gush from the North Sea.
It is not that the Government in due course will not spend more. I believe that the Government will find it possible in the next decade to release more money. It is that if we look to the Government, we shall not find them providing the financial support that we all might feel is adequate. In any case, I am not sure that we should look to the Government. The logical extension in the end is to expect of the Government to do what the GDR


does in East Germany and other countries of that ilk. I do not want mass, organised sport to be made into a political weapon. That is not my way of seeing sport develop and flourish. It is contrary to the principles of sport in this country.
There is no time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, to develop the philosophical side of sport. I believe that we must look with increasing imagination to private sponsorship. Many people have divided attitudes on the money that comes into sport. They often feel that bringing money into sport encourages shamateurism.
It is not just a question of pouring money into the game, but the effect that the money can have both on individuals and on the way in which the game is played. We know that money can put too much emphasis on monetary reward rather than on encouraging the spirit of the game but we have to face the fact that these difficulties are not insoluble. On the country, if sponsorship is confined not so much to sponsoring the individual but to sponsoring the sport itself, and if the governing bodies insist on these rules being observed, it seems to me that both the sport and the individual can gain.
There is no doubt that as costs rise private sponsors are bound to look for a commercial return on their investments. For example, in motor racing the Grand Prix circuits would cost about £5 million for a whole year's racing. To develop and run one car can cost between £150,000 and £450,000. It is true that this is a capital-intensive sport which provides a return not only to those who take part in it, but to the nation as a whole. We play a dominant part in this sport, because we make 90 per cent. of the cars involved, and it generates about £20 million of exports, but between this industry of sport and others there is a wide range of options.
There is one thing that we have to get right, and that is the degree of publicity to which we feel private sponsors are entitled. Here I think we come up against the muddled thinking that exists in the broadcasting world, in the BBC and in the way in which we set up the independent television service.
The Annan Report suggests that sponsored programmes—which could include

sporting programmes—should be allowed in the fourth television channel. I do not want to get involved in the question whether we shall have a fourth channel. I suspect that we shall not have one for some time, and that if we do it will not be organised on these lines.
What I hope the Minister will do, without setting up another working party, is to look at certain paragraphs in the Annan Report. The ones that I particularly recommend are on pages 347 and 348. There the right hon. Gentleman will see how difficult it is for anyone who sinks money into sport to get the return on his investment to which some of us think he is entitled.
I see no reason why we should think purely in terms of conventional sponsored sporting activities presented on the fourth television channel. I do not believe that, as at present constructed, and with their present attitudes, either the BBC or the independent television companies will feel able to allow within their programmes many sponsored programmes of the kind that I have in mind.
I believe that unless we take this step we shall find it increasingly difficult to persuade people to put their money into sports, because they will feel that they are not getting the return on their investment to which they are entitled. The return depends on adequate publicity, and adequate publicity in sport means publicity on television and radio.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the points that have been made in this debate he will look especially at those paragraphs in the Annan Report that attempt to come to grips with this problem.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the main object is to provide better facilities in the urban areas that are within the financial reach of those who wish to use them—widening the base, as has been said.
Many problems are concerned with the dual use of facilities, but we all acknowledge that the nation can no longer afford separate grossly under-used facilities in sport. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether at the design stage he can get an understanding of the problem of


dual use, and whether at the permission stage he can get a better cost yardstick, so that facilities can be got right from the outset.
I declare an interest. I own two shares in Stoke City Football Club.

Mr. Spriggs: Capitalist.

Mr. Forrester: I have been told so on many occasions. The financial affairs of most football clubs, including Stoke City, are not in a good state. We are in the process of imposing extra burdens on them which they are having difficulty in meeting. I welcome the financial arrangements my right hon. Friend is making to enable clubs to meet the new safety regulation.
It is just possible that if the facilities of football clubs were widened to take in a variety of sports and social activities there would be a different attitude on the terraces on Saturday afternoons. We may well have to think about subsidising some clubs to enable them to meet the financial problems of meeting the safety obligations.
I believe that the impact of the gifted sportsman is immeasurable. We should make provision not only for the ordinary sportsman but also for the gifted sport-man. It is my experience that throughout the career of a sportsman, from the junior stage to the stage of international competition the effort and skill of the individual improves considerably when he competes against those with extra skill. We all know that national morale sinks badly when national teams do not win their matches. Success in international events results in a great influx of those who are keen to emulate the masters in the sport. It is important that we succeed in international sport, but it is necessary that we plan to do so.
I know that my right hon. Friend is wedded to the concept of multisports complexes. I have much sympathy with him in this regard, but in the present financial climate there will be difficulty about providing these in inner city areas. In large urban areas there should be community recreation centres on sites capable of further development when the money is available. Alongside these there should be a network of major sports complexes controlled by a body directly

responsible to the Government. The major sports complexes could share their facilities with the local community, but their primary object should be to provide facilities to enable gifted athletes fully to develop their potential.
It is a sad commentary on our time I appreciate the efforts that my right hon. violence in sport. The supporters of Manchester United Football Club may be the worst offenders, but Derby County and Stoke City supporters did not fill themselves with glory last Saturday. I appreciate the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made and the measures he has persuaded clubs and the football authorities to adopt in an effort to combat the problem. However, I wonder how much money we are justified in spending on the erection of barriers, fences and pounds.
Alcohol is obviously a problem. I have never been able to understand why alcohol should be sold on football grounds, because it is an invitation to trouble. Regular attenders at football matches know that the hooligans are hellbent on searching out the supporters of the other club ouside the ground and having a confrontation. Controlling fans inside the ground is therefore not the only problem.
The police have a difficult task both inside and outside the ground. I wonder whether the softly-softly approach which has been adopted in the past will pay dividends or whether we should not, perhaps, be thinking about the imposition of much tougher penalties. Should we not be thinking in terms of the imposition of a strong term of detention? I do not know that three months detention in the "glass house" would be appropriate, though that was suggested earlier today, but three months detention in an ordinary detention centre is a penalty which is worthy of consideration.
This is a disease of society which will overtake us if we do not beat it soon. The sooner these people realise that we will not stand for it, and the sooner they realise that it is not just a question of their fines being paid by their chums, the sooner they will either stay away from a football ground or at least watch the soccer.
Finally, if Manchester United supporters are indeed thugs who come from


all over the country just for the want of a punch-up, then if we deny them access to Manchester United matches is it not possible that they will latch themselves on to some other team and we shall start the whole circle all over again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should like to call two other hon. Members before we begin the wind-up speeches.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The idea that if one actively participates in sport, hooliganism will be reduced, is nice. But I have known rugger players and oarsmen who have spent an active afternoon on the playing fields and the river who in the evening have behaved with at least as much violence and vandalism as any supporter of Manchester United in the course of the last month.
But it is spectator hooliganism that has dominated the debate this evening. I do not think that the Minister has got the right answer. We argued about detention centres in 1969 during the debate on the Children and Young Persons Act. It has not really worked. The ban on casual spectators by the imposition of all-ticket games has also been tried before and has not really worked. I suspect that they do rather better on the Continent. When Leeds United lost their European Cup final match in Paris, and there were those shocking scenes of vandalism, not only were individuals heavily penalised by the courts but Leeds United were also heavily penalised. The club was banned from European competition for two seasons. The best way of directly hitting football hooliganism is by imposing substantial fines on the clubs themselves if their supporters behave badly.
If, after the recent uproar in Norwich and Southampton, Manchester United had been fined £50,000 or £100,000 by, say, a sub-committee of the Sports Council, and the money devoted to community sport, Manchester United would either have to get a better grip on their supporters or would go bankrupt. That would have a powerful deterrent effect.
The Minister is responsible for the weather as well as for sport. Since he has taken over that responsibility we have had the most extraordinary weather which has done extraordinary things to our

pitches. One has only to look at "Match of the Day" regularly to see the terrible state of so many football pitches around the country. Almost every major football or baseball match in the United States is now played on artificial turf. It is exceedingly expensive. Experiments are now going on in this country and sponsored by the Minister. In my constituency, at Crystal Palace, experiments are taking place to try to get a cheaper artificial turf. I hope that no cuts in Government expenditure will reduce the experiments that are going on. I am sure that is the way to get better use of our major football stadia.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in urging that the VAT limit on sporting clubs should be lifted to £10,000. I have a mass of sporting clubs in my constituency which are badly hit by the low limit. If anything can be done in the Finance Bill to alleviate the situation, it will be of enormous benefit to many sporting clubs.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Derby County, the football club in my constituency, should be playing a match this evening. I am not sure whether they are playing, because the people who live near the ground have taken out an injunction against the club. They have done that because the hooliganism throughout the season has been detrimental to their interests. I do not know whether their action has succeeded. I understand their point of view. Every other week, when the club is playing at home, they have to barricade their doors and windows and keep the old and young off the streets because of the danger caused by the supporters of visiting clubs and by some of the so-called supporters of Derby County.
I am concerned about the general attitude that has been taken by successive Home Secretaries over the years. For five or six years I have tried to get them interested in the problem, but it is only in the last few months that any interest has been taken in it.
I understand the reason for the lack of time, but it is difficult for all hon. Members to have a chance to speak in such a short debate. More could be said about the problem. A tougher attitude must be taken with hooligans who cause trouble


on football grounds. I hope that magistrates will take a more realistic view in future. Fines are no good. Many club members put £1 a week in a kitty and, if anyone is convicted of an offence, they pay his fine out of the kitty. That is no good.
I was interested in the suggestion that thugs should be dealt with by a type of military service. My right hon. Friend might look at that to see whether the Secretary of State for Defence could set up a special unit of the Army where such people could spend three or four months. Some would call that conscription, but I do not mind what it is called. Let such people be subjected to a discipline that they do not get in school or at home.
Years ago, I suggested that, when a club was playing away from home, any supporters who committed an offence should be put in gaol and kept there until their parents bailed them out. One can imagine the situation when Manchester United is playing Plymouth. A father will arrive home on a Saturday night after having had a few drinks. A policeman will tell him that his son is in gaol in Plymouth and that he will stay there until the father goes there to bail him out. We lack that type of discipline.
The problem must be treated seriously. As I said last week in a supplementary Question to the Home Secretary, it is no good pussyfooting around. We must deal with the people involved as young thugs who are destroying the game, upsetting decent people and preventing ordinary people from enjoying an afternoon to which they have looked forward all week. Action must be taken now, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is doing something about the problem.
I am sorry that a debate of this sort has to be cut short. It is an important subject, but we can speak for only two or three minutes. That is disgraceful. I hope that my hon. Friend will take my suggestions seriously.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I welcome this debate but I deplore the lack of time made available to Back-Bench Members to put forward their views on this important subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the fault of the Chair. I have done my best.

Mr. Hannam: I accept that it is not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will consider introducing a system of yellow cards against Ministers who take up 40 minutes at the beginning of the debate.
When we talk about football hooliganism we must remember that it is not confined to large clubs and large cities. Small cities like Exeter and other local clubs are just as much affected by this problem. It is a social problem, a problem of law and order, and it will not be dealt with by forming little detention camps and putting people into them. This is a wholesale problem across the country.
We have had serious problems in Exeter. In one disturbance my wife and daughter were involved. They were abused by a group of drunken teenagers. Drunkenness before the match is one of the prime causes of the problem. I should like to see the Minister involve himself in this problem.
Another question that we should look at is the use of facilities. I have had ample evidence brought to me about schools and headmasters who are deliberately frustrating the attempts of amateur sports organisations to use their facilities. When the schools are asked whether organisations can use their facilities on Monday or Tuesday, they reply, "No. They are not available". When clubs ask whether they can use facilities on Wednesday or Thursday, they are again told, "No. They are not available". Schools make sure that no nights are available for the use of their facilities. That is something with which the Minister should concern himself as a matter of priority.
There is no time to deal with many of the points that I wish to mention. I believe that the Minister should concentrate on the base of the pyramid of sport and concern himself with what is happening out in the provinces and in the community rather than with the top sporting organisations.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I echo the sentiments of hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is a great tragedy, when we have waited


18 months for it, to have only the better part of two hours to debate this very important subject. I sympathise with the hon. Members for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) and Newport (Mr. Hughes) who wanted to speak, and also to those of my hon. Friends who had to curtail their speeches. It is a great pity that the Minister or the Home Secretary could not have made a separate statement on the subject of football hooliganism, because it is very much a matter for the Home Office as well as the Department of the Environment.
Members of the sporting fraternity must have felt very neglected because of the fact that this debate did not take place earlier. They had every right to feel that their own sporting arenas were worthy of far more frequent debate in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and I initiated a debate on sport under the Consolidated Fund Bill 18 months ago, and about 12 months ago I had a rather acrimonious Adjournment debate with the Minister on sport and recreation.
The point that I wish to take up first is that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) when he referred to the Sports Council. Many people are concerned at the rôle, the direction and the general trend in which the Sports Council is leading sport at the moment. This is a very important subject, which we should have more opportunity of considering. It is a problem on which the Minister may wish to say something when he replies.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to the White Paper and say no more about the problem of football hooliganism. There is little doubt that inflation and taxation is the United Kingdom is affecting sport. Clubs and their volunteer workers have been hit hard in recent months. In post-war years these volunteers have given much to sport.
For the clubs there is the ever-growing burden of rates and the fact that there is never any exemption from the various taxes, as occures in other Western European countries. For the volunteer who travels miles at weekends to help in organising, time-keeping and stewarding, the costs of rail travel, petrol and overnight accommodation are all having their effect. Alas, there is a growing tendency

for this band of people to withdraw their support.
Surely one of the most absurd aspects of our tax system is that the Government gave no concession to the Olympic appeal and levied the full 42½ per cent. corporation tax rate, which is a great tragedy. Our taxation system imposes a series of very harsh penalties by the standards of other nations, and knowing how strongly the Minister felt about the tax changes by the Conservative Government it is surprising that he has not won the war with his Treasury colleagues for making a change and achieving concessions.
Other European countries have a much more realistic attitude to VAT exemption. The right hon. Gentleman may well know that in France sporting events are subject to an entertainments duty ranging from 8 per cent. to 20 per cent. but that certain sports are exempt from this duty altogether. These include basketball, canoeing, handball, hockey, wrestling and a number of other sports. Germany exempts youth and welfare organisations from VAT. Swimming pool entrance fees are charged at the rate of 5·5 per cent., and 11 per cent. is charged on all other entrances. In Italy, entrance to public entertainments and games is charged at 6 per cent., Belgium exempts some non-profit making physical education organisations, and taxes the rest at 6 per cent. In Denmark only sporting events in which professionals take part are charged VAT. There is something here, therefore, that we should consider very urgently, because we are imposing a series of very harsh penalties.
The White Paper mentions a great deal about the youth sports programme. In spite of the honeyed words and aspirations of the White Paper I am still not convinced that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education and Science are well-co-ordinated on the use of school facilities in out-of-hours activities for sport. Many new comprehensive schools built in recent years have superb sports halls, and these are hardly ever used out of school hours. I hope that there will be an urgent review of the use of these facilities in each school under each local authority. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science about this subject I was not impressed with her reply. I asked


her for a statement about her Department's policy towards sport and young people. She said:
The opportunity for sport and recreation is an essential part of all educational provision. Leisure-time facilities for sport and recreation for young people over school age are also widely provided by the Youth Service."—[Official Report, 24th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 666.]
I do not think that these words generated much interest—nor did the other reply that she gave on 1st March, when I wanted to know how much had been spent on youth and sport for young people. Her Department was unable to break down the costs, but we need to know these facts, and this matter should be urgently looked at.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the hon. Member aware that in many of our towns in the North-West the local authorities are unable to provide amateur teams of any sort with playing fields?

Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, of which I am sure the Minister will take note.
What, therefore, is the youth sports programme? What are its achievements so far? Paragraph 58 of the White Paper rightly places great emphasis on the importance of attracting and retaining the interest of young people in sport and physical recreation. But I do not know who is running it and what its intentions are now that it is 20 months old? Is it the DOE, the DES or the Home Office that is running it? If it is an amalgam of all three, who is co-ordinating it? Most people concerned with it believe that it is a non-starter.
Hand in hand with the youth sports programme are the centres of excellence. Rightly, the Minister has placed a lot of importance on generating interest in centres of excellence. He plays a large part in trying to get a very good scheme off the ground, but I cannot help feeling that a degree of confusion lies behind the Minister's actions over the past two years or so. There seems to be an attitude that says "We have never had this rare breed of person before—the gifted sportsman—so we had better do something about it", but I believe that we have had many successful sports people over the years, and I am amazed at a letter that the Minister sent out last year

on 1st March. In that letter, which he sent to some adult training colleges and places of advanced education, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was seeking
information on the problems encountered by any of your students who were potential Olympic team members in carrying out the exacting training required to prepare for the 1976 Olympic Games.
and he asked what facilities existed or were needed.
It was a worthy letter, except that it went to, among others, Sutton College of Liberal Arts, in my constiuency, which somewhat surprised the principal. The Sutton College of Liberal Arts is fulfilling a vital rôle in the community, thanks to a Government grant, but it confines its activities very much to the liberal arts—in other words, to a wide range of adult academic pursuits—but on the creative side it teaches metalwork, jewellery making and pottery, and alas, it has no facilities for assisting gifted sportsmen. As I say, that letter from the right hon. Gentleman came as a surprise to the principal of the college.
There is confusion in the plan for creating centres of excellence. In February last year I asked the Minister about his progress on centres of excellence, and he replied:
Over 20 universities and colleges have intimated their willingness to take part in the scheme".—[Official Report, 19th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 1459.]
On 4th March, however, I sought further information, and I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would list the 20 or so universities that had intimated that they were willing to participate. Alas, only 11 appeared in his list.
I wish, therefore, to know precisely what is happening. Why is there the confusion and, above all, why is there the necessity to go to these lengths when our past successes have all been generated by clubs that understand the needs of the gifted sportsman? It is the clubs that need the money. It is the clubs that need some tax concession. It is the clubs that need special grants in order to extend their facilities. If an energetic programme were commenced in this direction, much would be achieved.
What is to happen next year, when the Sports Council grant to the centres of excellence expires? Who will continue to provide the money for the centres of


excellence to continue or expand? Moreover, why is the money paid to the centre and not used to help the individual, who may well face huge daily or weekly travelling expenses? Is it not right that financial assistance should go to the gifted individual and not merely to the centre?
I repeat that there is confusion. It exists in that area, and it is further confounded by the way in which the Sports Aid Foundation is, in the eyes of many, competing with the Committee on the Centres of Excellence. The Minister who has created it must lay down some guidelines. Again, on the subject of committees and other bodies, I should add that the National Playing Fields Association and the British Olympic Committee are two further bodies adversely affected by the presence of the Committee on the Centres of Excellence and the Sports Aid Foundation. It is no use the Minister saying that these four bodies all have separate terms of reference. So they may have, but the fact is that they keep burrowing into and around one another, and the result, I am told, is a warren of confusion.
I turn now to that part of the White Paper which deals with the provision of sports centres, and I express a concern that is felt by many people. In recent years, millions of pounds have been spent in developing sport and leisure centres. The House knows what is included in these units, but there is growing evidence that many of the vast sports halls are losing large sums of money for the local authorities, and certain parts of buildings are very much under-utilised. That is why I welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's comments when he said that not nearly enough use has been made of our resources. I have in mind here, for example, the kick-about areas.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can urge the Sports Council to develop the parks and try to extend the use of athletic tracks, kick-about areas, pitches or cross-country routes in existing parks. There is much that can be done. The cost of running and developing leisure centres must be fast becoming prohibitive.
There are many good ideas in the White Paper, and many problems are highlighted. This debate has not been able to cover them all. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will impress upon the Minister and his right hon. Friend

the Leader of the House that many hon. Members wanted to speak in the debate, but, alas, it has been curtailed for a variety of reasons. Perhaps hon. Members on the Government Benches will feel able to sign an Early-Day Motion to bring to the attention of the Leader of the House the importance of having a further debate on sport and recreation in which we may continue our consideration.
I leave the Minister with this thought: the growth of Government involvement in running sport and recreation has not brought us great success. On the contrary, it has generated a degree of cynicism and despair, especially as we see smaller nations overtaking us.
Something is not right with the organisation and direction, because in recent years there has been no development in sport generated by sports governing bodies. Hitherto they have always been abreast of techniques and trends, but nowadays they seem mesmerised by top-heavy bureaucratic interference and the shortage of money. We have never known such confusion as that which has existed over the past three years. Much has changed in that period, but sport is not better for it.
The organisation needs thorough reappraisal by the Minister, because something is very wrong. The Minister knows his sport; he has been around in sport for a long time and he knows what the people of sport tell him. He cannot be satisfied with the present structure of the Sports Council. I urge him to let the people of sport have a greater say in their affairs. They are, after all, the experts.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell rose—

Mr. Roy Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Minister has to ask permission from the whole House to speak twice in a debate. If this is the case I for one shall make the strongest possible objection to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not the case. An hon. Member who moves a substantive motion does not require the permission of the House to reply to that motion. This is set out in "Erskine May", page 418.

Mr. Howell: I begin by expressing agreement with everyone—and I understand the concern that is felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) about my long speech in opening this debate, but I had to deal with extremely important matters in detail. I said very little about the provisions of the White Paper. I thought that these would speak for themselves. I wanted to concentrate on new information. I understand the concern of hon. Members who wanted to speak in the debate, and I cannot reply to everything that has been said in the debate in such a short time.
I will convey the fact that we need more time to debate the matter, but I think that if Conservative Members intend to criticise us on this issue they should take more positive action. They have a great deal of time available to them. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the Minister's White Paper."] I know that it is my White Paper, but if it is to be debated thoroughly there are obligations on the Opposition equally to help provide time.

Mr. Macfarlane: Mr. Macfarlane rose—

Mr. Howell: It would be ridiculous to give way to the hon. Member. His speech caused such confusion, and I have to clear it up in a short time. I will convey the need for more time to debate this subject. In fact, I am delighted that we need more time.
Some of the financial matters can be raised in the Finance Bill. That is the appropriate time to put down amendments. The Conservatives have committed their party to a reduction of VAT on sports goods, yet last week their spokesmen were calling for an increase in VAT and a decrease in indirect taxation. I want more time to explore these inconsistencies.
I am grateful for the support that I have received on the problem of hooligans. The one thing that has come out of this debate is the united determination of both sides to get on top of this problem and deal with this canker in our society, and I appreciate that.
Reference has been made to amendments to the charter. I am confused here because the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who opened for the Conservatives, said that we should not

tinker with the machinery any more. The hon. Member who closed the debate for them said that we should reduce the size of the Sports Council. I am not sure who is speaking for the Opposition. The fact is that if we reduce the size of the council it will be at the expense of the official spokesmen for the governing bodies and that would be very regrettable.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) and the continuing difficulties faced by Derby County. I visited the ground and I told the Football Association on several occasions that the recommendations that we made in the summer have not been carried out fully. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I have again told the Football Association this week that this is a matter that should receive its urgent attention. I hope that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that very short reply. It indicates at least my support for his general proposition.
I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) did not approve of my appointment of Sir Robin Brook as Chairman of the Sports Council. When I returned to office I found not a tremendous state of confusion but a degree of concern about the deteriorating relationships between the Sports Council and the CCPR, the central governing body. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not in any way attempting to suggest that Sir Robin Brook did not merit this appointment or had not the ability for it. He was appointed precisely because he was a swordsman of great quality and had represented our country in the past, and he was, and still is, the treasurer of the CCPR. He was the one man who could repair the difficulties that had arisen between the organisations and restore the degree of harmony necessary. I much regret that the hon. Gentleman thought it right to single out that matter.
I entirely agree with those who believe that we must have full use of our facilities. Much of my opening statement was designed to bring that about, as are the regional conferences in the autumn. The youth sports programme is going ahead. It is being conducted by the Sports Council. The Sports Council is coming up with some exciting ideas for development policy with such organisations as the Rugby Union and the Midlands Club


Cricket Conference. I shall be happy to supply hon. Members with further details if they so desire.
The final point on which I wish to comment concerns the centres of excellence and the Sports Aid Foundation. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) did a great disservice to the Sports Aid Foundation in particular. It is no good saying that our gifted sportsmen can be left to get help from clubs in the old way. The fact of the matter is that competing in international sport these days and trying to earn a living and to develop a career is a major difficulty.
The centres of excellence are being established in a most exciting way. The reason why the hon. Gentleman's college got a letter from me was that I wrote to every college and university in the country. I am glad to say that I had a magnificently encouraging response. The first six centres of excellence started in Leeds on 1st January. The regional councils are getting on with establishing them. We shall have a network of 30 or 40 by the end of the year, covering most sports. This is a most exciting development.
No longer should we expect our top sportsmen and sportswomen to subsidise the rest of the country because they are competing for us abroad in international events. The Sports Aid Foundation is doing exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants. It is raising the money to pay the individual bursaries for these top-class international sportsmen to buy their equipment, to send them abroad and to help them with their education, apprenticeships and so on. That is the whole purpose of the scheme. It has been very well received. I do not believe that there is any hostility towards it in the organisations, which the hon. Gentleman suggested, for the simple reason that they all sit on the controlling body of both the centres of excellence and the Sports Aid Foundation. I am sure that if they had any degree of doubt or perturbation

Division No. 104]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H.)


Ashton, Joe
Dunn, James A.
Hunter, Adam


Bates, Alf
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Beith, A. J.
English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W.)


Booth, Rt. Hon. Albert
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Forrester, John
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C.)
George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mendelson, John

about these matters, they would raise it on those occasions.

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not think that I ever used the word "hostility". What I said was that there was a degree of confusion between the three or four rival committees that are burrowing around each other, but I never used the word "hostility". The Minister must not put words into my mouth.

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to use the word "confusion", I accept that. His whole speech was beset by confusion. He clearly did not understand the purposes of the centres of excellence or of the Sports Aid Foundation.
We need to mobilise every resource to support our sportsmen and sportswomen. That is not least the purpose of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester) said, success in international sport is vital because of its effect, all the way down, in getting youngsters to have a go themselves. International sport is the place where we establish our standards.
I am sorry that we have not had more time. I shall do my best to encourage more time for debate on this subject. I shall talk with my right hon. and hon. Friends in order to seek their support for more time to be made available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Spriggs: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Spriggs: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have a set of rules simply to suit the hon. Member of St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 7.

Millan, Rt. Hon. Bruce
Tinn, James



Pendry, Tom
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Penhaligon, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Price, William (Rugby)
William, Rt. Hon. Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Walter Harrison.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woof, Robert





NOES


Emery, Peter
Hannam, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhart, Philip
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Mr. Walter Johnson and


Giffiths, Eldon
Wells, John
Mr. Leslie Spriggs


Hampson, Dr. Keith

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on Sport and Recreation (Command Paper No. 6200).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the consideration of the Lords Amendment to the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Graham.]

Orders of the Day — RETURNING OFFICERS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 4

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 21, leave out from "operation" to end of line 23 and insert
on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.

10.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This Government amendment replaces the provision in Clause 4 for the Act to come into operation three months after the date on which it is passed by one which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to fix the date of operation by order.
The purpose of the three months interval was to allow the new returning officers and their supporting local authority staffs sufficient time in which to plan for the change over of responsibilities. It is most unlikely that it will be necessary to fix an earlier operative date, but a situation could arise—for example, in the event of a by-election—where it would obviously be desirable to invoke the order-making power. The new arrangements for which the Bill provides have been under consideration for a considerable time, and it is only reasonable and fair for all the

interests affected to be made fully aware where the statutory responsibilities would lie if a by-election were to arise.
It is right that the sheriffs as well as the local authority staffs should not be left in doubt about the future situation. While, as I have said, the new provision seems unlikely to be invoked in advance of the three months period originally provided for, it offers a degree of flexibility which would remove any possible uncertainty and thereby ensures that adequate machinery would be available in the eventuality of a by-election occurring unexpectedly at a fairly early date. In that sense, the amendment reflects the assurance given in another place that, in the short term, adequate electoral machinery would be forthcoming.

Mr. Hector Monro: This is another great U-turn by the Government, because only in March they were happy to stick to their three months. However, under great pressure of the likelihood of an election, a fortnight ago they had to change the wording of the Bill so that they could provide some service for counting the votes and setting up the procedures for an election if you-know-who had not ratted on us and voted with the Government. That had a dramatic effect and brought about this amendment.
We are still in a situation where an election could take place at any time. It is right that the Bill should come into force as soon as possible to relieve the sheriffs' clerks and their staff who will carry out the work and for the new set-up to be in full sway should an election be called forthwith.
I am glad to support the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

High Court (Reference to Official Report)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I rise to present a petition from Roger John Payne. In view of the fact that I shall seek to move a motion arising from this petition, I request that it be read by the Clerk.
The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of Roger John Payne Sheweth
That your Petitioner, being the Plaintiff in an action for a Declaration fixed for hearing in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, on the 26th day of April 1977 wherein a Department of State is the Defendant;
And that your Petitioner requiring in the said action to quote extracts from the Official Report of proceedings in your Honourable House;
Wherefore your Petitioner prays that the leave of this Honourable House be granted to your Humble Petitioner to put in evidence extracts of the Official Report of proceedings in the Honourable House for the 21st day of June 1973 being those columns numbered 181 and 182 in the Official Report, and further to put in evidence Written Answer No. 120 given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on the 1st day of July 1974 in response to a Question from the Honourable Member for Maidstone.
And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

Ordered,
That leave be given for reference to be made to the said report.—[Mr. Wells.]

DEEDS OF COVENANT (SEALING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am delighted to be able to raise a specific matter and to see a Treasury Minister here to reply to the debate, because there is a legal aspect to the matter, and if a Law Officer is not present, this is a matter with which the Treasury has power to deal.
As the case unfolds it will be found that it concerns the Church of St. Peter

and St. Paul, Uplyme, in my constituency. I believe that matters of a constituency nature should be, and normally are, sorted out by correspondence and contact between the Member concerned and the Minister or the Member and the Minister's Department, and that time should not be taken on the Floor of the House for these items. Indeed, this is only the third Adjournment debate of a constituency nature that I have raised during my 18 years in the House, and today of all days I would wish not to be debating this matter because only three and a half hours ago my wife presented me with a baby daughter.
However, I raise the matter because what has happened is bureaucratic nonsense. It is exactly the type of case that makes the average man in the street despair of the foolishness of administration and the damned pigheadedness of certain of our administrators, civil servants or—dare I say it?—even Ministers.
The House will know that the 1971 Finance Act abolished the necessity that covenants of gift had to be stamped. Up to that time, there had been a requirement that covenants should carry a wafer seal, usually pink or red, and they had to be sent for stamping and registration immediately after execution. I believe that at the time of the Finance Bill it was again considered to be unnecessarily rigid and bureaucratic that the requirement for the sealing of these covenants should continue. Indeed, it was abolished, as was the need for the wafer seal that went on such covenants.
It is against this background that I wish to unfold the case on behalf of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. Early in June 1976 a claim was submitted to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Taxes at Bootle for the refund of more than £803 against 89 covenants on which payment has been received for the financial year 1975–76. This was in accordance with the procedure which had been followed since 1971 when the requirement that covenants should be stamped was abolished by the Finance Act. Prior to that date covenants had been sent by the church for stamping and registration immediately after execution. Up to this time there had been a requirement, as was made absolutely clear, that the covenants should carry a wafer seal.
In August 1976 a letter was received from Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes at Bootle saying that 16 of the covenants were invalid because they had not been executed under seal and so
do not constitute effective disposition of income for tax purposes and tax cannot be repaid in respect of payments made under their terms.
The writer of the letter said late:
Documents thus found to be invalid cannot be made valid merely by affixing a seal or altering the wording. They must be re-executed under seal and will operate only from the date of execution and repayment is normally only available in respect of payment made after that date.
The sum was in respect of only £180·45 for 1975–76 and £44·17 for 1976–77, a total of £224·62. It is not very much, but it is well over one-quarter of the returnable tax claimed and a very serious loss to a small church in a small parish which has to exist on the contributions of parishioners and where a considerable sacrifice was being made by a number of people who wished to sustain the church.
In March 1975 the then assistant honorary treasurer of the parochial church council had had some new forms of covenant duplicated locally from which the word "sealed" was omitted from the phrase "signed, sealed and delivered" in the attestation which had survived from the days when the seal had been used. The omission could have been due to a typographical error—after all, it was the omission of only one word—or, as sealing as such as a positive action of putting a wafer seal on the document no longer occurs, ordinary men and women could not be blamed for conjecturing or thinking that the word "sealed" was redundant.
Indeed, it might well be argued that to have a document containing that word signed, witnessed and sworn when the signatory knew that the document was not to have a wafer seal appended to it might be an incorrect action, as no wafer seal was to be attached. Therefore, why in God's name should someone put his hand to something which was not to be carried out?
I repeat that the covenants were produced locally in an effort to save money. If the Minister wishes to see them, I have examples of the old covenant and of the new one.
Before the church council appealed to me the assistant treasurer made a direct approach again to Bootle asking that the inspector of taxes should agree that the covenantors concerned should be allowed to sign new covenants, trusting that if this were done the Inland Revenue would allow the date of first payment to be applied to the new covenants. Nobody challenges that the intent and belief of the covenantors was that they were covenanting as from the date of the first documents. Bootle replied that this could not be done. What a load of bureacratic nonsense!
The parish sought my help on this point, and I immediately approached Sir William Pile, who took a sympathetic interest. I am most grateful to him. He wrote to me on 9th January this year. I am sure the Minister has received a copy of his letter which says:
On first reading your letter and that of Mr. Innes"—
which I had sent—
—"I confess that, not having met the point before, I wondered whether the Department was being a little wooden in standing on the omission of the word 'sealed' in the covenant forms that had been 'signed and delivered'. I have therefore looked very carefully into the matter and I have to say that I am now persuaded that we are not standing on 'a legalistic tautology'.
That applies because I had suggested that this really was pure legalistic tautology and that the Inland Revenue was getting out of its responsibility to pay what obviously, in any commonsense or ethical approach, should have been repaid. Sir William went on:
under English law a promise which is made without consideration—and a charitable covenant falls into this category—is ineffective unless made by deed, and a deed must be under seal.
This is the amazing factor.
In the absence of a wax seal, wafer seal or other mark, it is accepted that sealing has taken place if the attestation clause includes the word 'sealed'.
One does not have to do it but, in fact, one has to sign that one has done it although one knows one will not do it. Can that make sense? Can that be what the Minister is going to support? The Board of the Inland Revenue said that it was not within the power of the Inland Revenue to correct this matter, an error on the part of the parish council, however sympathetic it may feel towards it.
I must say that Sir William was kind in that he conceded that, contrary to what had originally been written to the church, new deeds made for the current year 1976–77—therefore, before 6th April 1977, if they were made within this period—would be allowed to have effect for payments if they had been made at any time since 6th April 1976 but not earlier. Indeed, this saved the parochial church council £44, and that is why I referred to the two sums earlier in my speech.
There is another interesting factor. If the Treasury or the Inland Revenue are going to stand on a legalistic nonsense because they say they cannot alter the law—it should be pointed out that they have altered it—I must emphasise that the Board of Inland Revenue, when it was required that flimsy seals were necessary before 1969, accepted covenants without seals prior to that time. If the Minister wants evidence—I am certain he will take my word—I can provide it from this church.
At least no one has suggested that the parish should be let off the hook if it had done anything wrong. What we are suggesting is that it should be given what everyone in the case accepts is justified. No one has for a moment ever suggested that the executors of the documents did not properly, and in their own minds, deem that they were taking every legal step necessary for the covenants to obtain tax repayments.
I suggest, therefore, that the plain man should not be required to set his hand to what must seem to him to be a patently untrue statement and to sign that a document is to be sealed when he knows that it is not to be sealed. Surely that is as obnoxious to a lawyer as it is to a church man, giving encouragement to the all-too-prevalent attitude to any form of oath, that it is anachronistic mumbo-jumbo which is not to be taken literally.
The sum at stake for the church is small. Many would say that it is negligible. However, the sum at stake for the covenantors is not small. Part of it, in one instance, is the widow's mite. Therefore, the principle at stake is anything but negligible. If the present ruling is upheld, much larger sums could be denied to the church. No one wants that to happen. I do not believe that the Inland

Revenue does. Certainly I do not believe that Sir William does. I cannot believe that the Treasury does. If there is a difficulty in law, there is surely power in the Treasury to make an ad hoc payment to the church for this amount. If it must hold up this legalistic nonsense, repayment should be made, and I appeal to the generosity of the Minister, because he knows that this money has been pledged properly.
Nearly all politicians today believe that they themselves and their parties are compassionate. So does the law, which takes great risks and on occasions faces obloquy to show compassion to criminals. There is nothing criminal in this case. Can none of this gentle rain of compassion seep through to the stifled arteries of our bureaucracy in order to prevent a village church being financially flogged for a minor mistake or an error of omission by a helper, and to prevent very considerable financial suffering?
I have attempted to be reasonable. But, if we cannot across the Floor of the House find some way of working out the financial payment of this money to the church, I suggest that the Treasury will be adopting tax evasion methods to avoid paying back what it knows in its mind should justifiably be paid. I do not believe that it is right that any Member of Parliament, especially any responsible Member of Parliament, should have to make that sort of accusation against the Treasury. The Treasury knows that this is a quite justifiable case. I appeal to the great might of the finest of all Ministries in the country to find some way to help the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul at Uplyme.

10.34 p.m.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I congratulate the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), first, on obtaining this Adjournment debate in order to raise this matter on behalf of his constituents and, second, on the birth to his wife this evening of a daughter.

Mr. Emery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies: I have great sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman, whicht means that I shall not be able to do anything. But I assure him


that, if it were possible to do anything, this would be the kind of case in which I should want to assist. It is a hard case—one of the hardest of hard cases—but I learned when I read my law books that, unfortunately, hard cases make bad law.
This is not a matter of bureaucracy or of administration. If it were, it might very well lie in the hands of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue or of Treasury Ministers to do something about it. Unfortunately, this is a matter not of legal technicality, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but of an interpretation of the law or of the Inland Revenue acting according to the legal advice that it has received from its advisers.
The Inland Revenue believes that its advice is correct. It is not for me to say, but that is the advice which it has received, and it has to act according to the legal advice which it has received. I, as a Minister, cannot overturn that interpretation of the law of the land. It is not my place to change the law. Parliament can change the law. The courts can interpret the law. But a Minister should not be in a position to apply the law as between different citizens according to his own interpretation of that law.
Unfortunately, this is an area of great technical complexity. The law states that if there is a deed of covenant certain tax privileges accrue, but if there is not, those privileges do not accrue.
The question is whether there is a deed of covenant, and that is a question of law. The law lays down that in order for there to be a deed of covenant, the document must satisfy certain conditions. One of those has in the past been that it had to be a sealed document, whereby a seal was affixed to the document. But over the years the courts have looked at this matter. There have been cases where the seal, which is only a large piece of wax, has been lost. But the courts have, as I understand it, been prepared to accept that the document was under seal in spite of the loss of the seal if the words "signed, sealed and delivered" were at the bottom of the document.
The Inland Revenue now takes the view, in the light of the decided cases, that if the attestation clause in the document includes the word "sealed" it is prepared to assume that sealing has taken

place. But if the word "sealed" is not there the assumption does not apply, and the Inland Revenue, on the advice it is given, cannot accept that that document is a deed of covenant for the purposes of the tax legislation.
I accept that this is a technical and legalistic matter, but the whole law of covenant is technical and legalistic, and I would not want to bore the house tonight by tracing the history of the deed of covenant, contracts under seal and the need for consideration in other contracts.
I have great sympathy with the case presented by the hon. Member, and with his constituents. I wish it were possible for me to say tonight that we could give the money back. But it does not lie in my power to change the law of England. One of our Law Lords said that there is no equity about a tax. That meant not that there is no fairness about a tax but that we cannot pick and choose in taxation matters.

Mr. Emery: I am pleased to receive the hon. Gentleman's sympathy. If I understand him properly, he is restrained by the law from doing anything. Can I recruit his sympathy if I table an amendment to the Finance Bill specifically to relieve this case retrospectively? Can I be sure that his sympathy would be carried into action and that he would do exactly what he said he wants to do; that is, give the money back to the church?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to pronounce on an amendment dealing with a particular case. How the Committee on the Bill would react is a matter for the Committee. If the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment calling attention to the anomalies in the law on this matter and arguing that the word "sealed" was not necessary in future for the generality of taxpayers, that might be another matter. But it would be extremely difficult and improper to make an amendment to the Bill retrospectively to relieve the tax on one person or group of persons, however sympathetic one might be to the case.
Unfortunately, there is no equity about a tax. Unfortunately, although the law of equity may have been made according to the size of the Lord Chancellor's foot, as was once said, the law of taxation does


not depend on the size of the foot of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue or of Treasury Ministers. That, in fact, is the case that I must rest on.
This is a matter of law. I do not say this unkindly, but it is open to any citizen in this country to challenge an interpretation of the law by seeking legal advice and redress in the courts. In this case I realise that a small amount of money is involved. I am not saying that people should go to court, but at the end of the day that is the right place to decide these matters until Parliament changes the law. I am sorry for the hon. Member's constituents, but I cannot do anything to assist them.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I thank the Minister for his reply. I must point out that I would not have raised this matter had it involved a large corporation or body with large funds. I would have given the advice that the way to go about this is to challenge it in the courts. But this body does not have the type of financial backing to enable it to go to court and enter into what is likely to be a most costly action

involving much much more money than it could obtain if it case. I must point out to the Minister that this is why I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House this evening.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I accept that entirely. I was merely pointing out that it does not lie with me or with the Inland Revenue to act here. The only way to change the situation is through the courts, or by Parliament passing another law. It is not within my power to go any further than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Before I adjourn the House, may I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and his wife on the birth of a daughter. In view of the debate on the Adjournment, I suggest that the hon. Member does not forget to claim his child benefit immediately.

Mr. Emery: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.